A bailor does not usually monitor the bailee while the latter is in possession of the bailed goods.
The hotel was required to return the property to the bailor (plaintiff) when he requested it.
The level of care required varies depending on whether the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the sole benefit of the bailee, or a mutual-benefit bailment.
The law of bailment creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the bailee if the bailor can prove delivery of property, acceptance by the bailee, and damage to or loss of the property.
What is the difference between a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor and a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee?
If you leave a watch with the jeweler to be repaired, who is the bailor and who is the bailee?
The possessor might for example entrust an object to an expert in order for that expert to conserve, research or market the object: the transferee of possession becomes the bailee of the transferor and questions might arise as to whether the bailee is precluded by the normal estoppel on denying title that applies between bailee and bailor from detaining the goods for a reasonable time to investigate the bailor's title.
An alternative analysis of the potential bailment arising in such circumstances might be that the bailor guarantees its own title to the bailee.
Principal among these would be the claim for damages in conversion where the bailee wrongfully returns the object to the bailor having received notice of the valid third party claim, (62) or the claim for a declaration that the third party has title.
In addition, the law recognizes a so-called "constructive bailment" or "quasi-bailment" under circumstances "where the person having possession of a chattel holds it under such circumstances that the law imposes on him or her the obligation of delivering it to another," even without an explicit agreement between the bailor and the bailee.
102) The argument by Hungary that the bailment claim nowhere alleged that the parties mutually consented to occupy the relationship of bailor and bailee, and that the Treaty concluded in 1947 could not demonstrate the necessary intent, was contested by the claimants, and rebuffed by the Court of Appeals, not on the ground that regardless of the asserted objections Hungary voluntarily took possession of the Collection, but rather on the conceptually narrower point that the bailment was alleged to have emanated from an 'arrangement' between the family and Hungary and that the family agreed on the return of the works to the relevant Hungarian institutions 'for safekeeping'.
Whether a proposed statutory amendment to the Bavarian law of limitation periods119 would alter this situation and bring about a change in the identity of the defendants' bailor remains an open question.