Peet v. Roth Hotel Co.

Nature of the Case

This case involved a bailment issue in connection with a lost ring.

Facts

Peet (P) needed to have a ring repaired. He gave it to the cashier at the Roth Hotel (D) to deliver to Mr. Hotz, a regular guest of the hotel, to fix the ring. The hotel lost the ring and this lawsuit ensued.

At trial the cashier admitted that the ring had been delivered to her. It was also established that the ring was immediately lost because it was inadvertently placed on her desk or counter and within easy reach of anyone standing or passing by. Peet eventually discovered that Mr. Hotz never received the ring and then sued Roth Hotel to recover its value. The verdict went to Peet and Roth Hotel appealed, asserting that it was not liable because Peet failed to divulge the unusual value of her ring.

Issue

Before the mutual assent of bailment can occur, must the receiver be made aware of the unusual value of the item in question?

Holding and Rule of Law

No. Before the mutual assent of bailment can occur, the receiver need not be made aware of the unusual value of the item in question.

Mutual assent to a contract may be expressed by conduct, words, or both. The expression of mutual assent is found in what transpired between the parties in this case. Peet delivered and the hotel accepted the ring to be delivered to Mr. Hotz. The bailee of an article, undeceived as to identity, is not relieved of liability on account of a unilateral mistake as to value. There was no mistake concerning the mutual assent that created this contract for bailment. The identity of the property and all its attributes except its value were as well known to Roth Hotel.

Disposition

Affirmed.