Business Law

1 -- I discussed this case extensively in posting #559339. The main problem is determining who owns the airspace and if the airspace should be dedicated to the terminal due to its use. The owners contend that no more than surface and subsurface elements are needed, but the fact remains that we are installing a subway terminal. Due to the technological components and considering changing technology, we would have a major problem if we (the court) decide that the airspace could be used by surrounding developers or owners, and then find that their development interferes with our subway communications. This would present a legal fiasco and would be a threat to passenger safety.

2 -- In this case, Hines stored her furniture in a warehouse. The warehouse owner moved Hines furniture next door, where someone else was the owner (Butler). A fire broke out and both warehouses were destroyed. Hines sued Arnett, where her property was moved by the Butler, the warehouse owner. The problem in this case is that Hines didn't entrust Arnett with her property, but she did with Butler. The second problem is that Butler did not notify Hines that s/he was moving the property that belonged to Hines, so there isn't even a consent situation. Another issue is that we don't know what the exact agreement was between Hines and Butler, whether it involved money, and the other conditions surrounding the property that was to be stored in the warehouse. The most challenging element is trying to determine where the liability resides for the property. Both warehouses burned down, but we need to look specifically at where the property was. The fact that the property could have or would have been destroyed in a warehouse that also burned down is irrelevant because it didn't happen. We can't do 'what-ifs' in law. Therefore, the property was lost in Arnett's warehouse. Butler would not be able to claim the loss with her/his insurance company because the loss wasn't sustained by Butler. However, the...