In the text case of J&L Jewelry v. EPK Management, the plaintiff, J&L, sued EPK for breach of an implied bailment after thieves broke in and stole J&L's entire inventory of jewelry. The trial court dismissed J&L's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. What was the result upon appeal?
A) The motion to dismiss was affirmed in part, reversed in part, on the grounds that while an implied bailment was created, the bailment for the benefit of the bailor and not the bailee, and liability was a matter best determined by a jury.
B) The motion to dismissed was reversed, because EPK's refusal to allow J&L access to the building after closing hours created an implied bailment and shifted liability for J&L's merchandise to EPK.
C) The motion to dismiss was affirmed, because a bailment agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties in order to be upheld.
D) The motion to dismiss was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, on the grounds that EPK had a duty to protect J&L's merchandise when the mall was closed for the night.
E) The motion to dismiss was affirmed, because the retail space license agreement created a licensee relationship, not a tenancy, and J&L failed to sufficiently allege a constructive bailment.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In the text case of J&L Jewelry v. EPK Management, the plaintiff, J&L, sued EPK for breach of an implied bailment after thieves broke in and stole J&L's entire inventory of jewelry. The trial court dismissed J&L's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. What was the result upon appeal?
A) The motion to dismiss was affirmed in part, reversed in part, on the grounds that while an implied bailment was created, the bailment for the benefit of the bailor and not the bailee, and liability was a matter best determined by a jury.
B) The motion to dismissed was reversed, because EPK's refusal to allow J&L access to the building after closing hours created an implied bailment and shifted liability for J&L's merchandise to EPK.
C) The motion to dismiss was affirmed, because a bailment agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties in order to be upheld.
D) The motion to dismiss was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, on the grounds that EPK had a duty to protect J&L's merchandise when the mall was closed for the night.
E) The motion to dismiss was affirmed, because the retail space license agreement created a licensee relationship, not a tenancy, and J&L failed to sufficiently allege a constructive bailment.

In the Text Case of J&L Jewelry V