Date: January 12th, 2018 1:42 PM
Author: ~~(>' ' )>
<< "Moishe’s friend Chaim asked him to do a favor and return a loan of $300 to Moishe’s brother, Shlomo. Chaim gave Moishe the money in an envelope with instructions to return it to Shlomo." >>
This is a classic gratuitous bailment scenario. There's nothing in it for Moishe, who is doing it as a favor, and all of the benefit is for Chaim.
Under old school common law, Moishe would be strictly liable for caring for the money. That, of course, is a god damn retarded rule that isn't very popular now.
Most U.S. jurisdictions would now say that all bailees have a duty to act reasonably (regardless of whether its a gratuitous bailment or another type) or that gratuitous bailees have a duty to not act with gross negligence.
<< "On the way, home Moishe received a text from Chaim telling him not to give the money back as Chaim needed it for some other purpose." >>
Chaim is entitled to direct the disposition of his property.
<< "Moishe replied by text that since he had been entrusted the money, he was not going to give it back." >>
Moishe is a retard. His right to possess the money is controlled by Chaim.
Chaim has a conversion claim against Moishe at this point.
<< "As Moishe got out of his car, he was accosted by thieves who grabbed the envelope with the money and sped off on motorcycles." >>
We lack facks sufficient to know whether Moishe was negligent or grossly negligent.
<< "Chaim told Moishe to tell Shlomo that he had paid the money but that it was stolen." >>
Chaim is an idiot, too. Chaim had a duty to repay the loan. He didn't.
Chaim owes Shlomo. Shlomo can sue Chaim if there is a default. (But we don't know whether there is a default. For instance, Chaim could have been paying early.)
If the old bailment rule applies, Moishe is strictly liable to Moishe and must pay him. In that case, Moishe would have a subrogated claim for conversion against the robbers (and maybe other tort claims).
If one of the newer rules applies, the outcome is unclear. We don't know whether Moishe was negligent or grossly negligent.
If Moishe is liable to Chaim because he was negligent or grossly negligent, Moishe would still have a subrogated claim for conversion against the robbers (and maybe other tort claims).
If Moishe was not negligent or grossly negligent, Chaim would have a claim for conversion against the robbers.