In Ziva Jewelry v. Car Wash Headquarters, when a jewelry salesman left his car at a carwash, it was stolen with over $850,000 of jewelry hidden inside. When the jeweler sued the carwash, what was the result? The carwash was not liable for the stolen jewelry because there was no bailment formed. The carwash was liable because it took responsibility for the jewelry when it accepted the vehicle for service. The carwash was liable for the stolen jewelry because a bailment was formed. The carwash was not liable because it could not have expected it was taking responsibility for over $850,000 worth of jewelry when it accepted the salesman's vehicle.

Question

Ayden

Business

21 December, 11:18

In Ziva Jewelry v. Car Wash Headquarters, when a jewelry salesman left his car at a carwash, it was stolen with over $850,000 of jewelry hidden inside. When the jeweler sued the carwash, what was the result? The carwash was not liable for the stolen jewelry because there was no bailment formed. The carwash was liable because it took responsibility for the jewelry when it accepted the vehicle for service. The carwash was liable for the stolen jewelry because a bailment was formed. The carwash was not liable because it could not have expected it was taking responsibility for over $850,000 worth of jewelry when it accepted the salesman's vehicle.

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Ethen Garcia · Answer 1

The last option is the right answer

Explanation:

(The car wash was not liable because it could not have expected it was taking responsibility for over $850,000 worth of jewelry when it accepted the salesman's vehicle)

The car wash was not informed that jewelry worth such a high value is also present inside the car. It is the responsibility of car owner to check and ensure nothing is present inside