Kaity Yu Bailments Article http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6563919.ece? token=null&offset=0&page=1 This case is called Terry Fedrick v.

Cliff Nichols and it deals with bailments. Fedrick is a truck driver and his truck short circuited and caught on fire while parked outside of his house. He extinguished the fire and brought it to Nicholss repair shop. He agreed to try to repair the truck. The truck was parked outside his repair shop and overnight it caught on fire and it was destroyed. Fedrick sued Nichols and alleged that he had contracted to repair the truck and destroyed it instead. Nichols denied it. The trial court found that Nichols did not breach his contract with Fedrick to install the parts and to attempt to repair the truck. The trial court found that Nichols did not breach his contract with Fedrick to attempt to repair the truck, that Nichols attempted to repair the truck, that his certified mechanic installed parts and checked for electrical shorts, and that all parts were found to be properly operational and working. Fedrick argued that a bailment was created and that Nichols, the bailee, had acted with negligence. He brought this up after the courts decision had been made, so it was too late. When this was brought up in another claim, the trial court couldnt come to a final conclusion on the outcome because of insufficient evidence. I definitely agree that Nichols did not breach a contract with Fedrick. He did attempt to fix the truck and checked for electrical shorts, and all parts were found to be ok. I also agree that a bailment had been made because the personal property was delivered for a specific purpose, the delivery was accepted, Nichols implied that the contract would be carried out, and both parties understood the terms of the contract. If Fedrick had brought the bailment allegation up earlier, I believe he would have won some sort of compensation for the destruction of his truck under this bailment. Nichols is the bailee and Fedrick is the bailor. This bailment was a mutual benefit bailment because Nichols would have gotten money for the repairs, and Fedrick would have had his truck repaired. Like we discussed in class, ordinary care was supposed to be demonstrated. The truck was destroyed, which shows that ordinary care was not carried out and demonstrated and this goes against the bailment.