Opinion ID: 201603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Lost Jewelry and the Alleged Depositum Contract

Text: 5 Most of the important facts in this case are undisputed. In October 2000, two jewelry salesmen from New York, Robert Weinberg and his nephew, Jeffrey Reisman, traveled to Puerto Rico in order to see some clients and attempt to sell their jewelry. Both men worked as independent salesmen who owned their own separate companies. They each traveled to Puerto Rico with certain items of jewelry, carried in bags. The bags contained a large volume of relatively low-cost items; much of the jewelry was cubic zirconia. Weinberg estimated that Reisman's bag weighed 80 or 90 pounds; Reisman estimated that his own bag weighed about 60 pounds. 6 Most of the jewelry carried by Weinberg and Reisman on the October 2000 business trip was stock belonging to other companies who made jewelry. Most of the jewelry in Weinberg's bag came from co-plaintiff Astoria Jewelry Manufacturing, Inc. (Astoria); most of the jewelry in Reisman's bag came from co-plaintiffs P & S Shah Enterprises, Inc. (Shah) and Eclipse Collection, Inc. (Eclipse). 1 Weinberg and Reisman held the jewelry from these companies in order to sell their products and received commissions from the jewelry companies for the sales. Some of the products possessed by Reisman and Weinberg could be sold directly to customers; others were merely low-cost samples that a customer could examine before deciding to order the real items from Astoria, Shah, and Eclipse. 7 On October 23, 2000, Reisman and Weinberg were traveling around Puerto Rico in a rented car; they were visiting various potential customers and attempting to make sales. During the early afternoon, Weinberg visited the jewelry store of defendant Barquet, in Old San Juan, while Reisman remained in the car with the jewelry bags, parked in front. Barquet was one of Weinberg's regular customers but not one of Reisman's regular customers. Weinberg knew the owners of Barquet well and would generally stop in to say hello when he was in the area. 8 Natalio Barquet, Jr. (Natalio) is vice-president of Barquet; his father (who has the same name as his son) is president. Upon arriving at Barquet, Weinberg spoke to Natalio because Natalio's father was not there. Weinberg relates that he showed Natalio some bracelets, and Natalio seemed interested in potentially purchasing some of Weinberg's jewelry for his store; Natalio wanted his father to see the items the next morning. Weinberg states that he told Natalio he would return to the Barquet store at 10:00 the next morning. 2 9 Weinberg and Reisman had another business appointment at a shopping center later that afternoon and they did not want to take their bags of jewelry to that appointment. Weinberg relates that he asked Natalio: Listen, as long as I have an appointment here tomorrow morning, may I put my bags away here? That way I don't have to have them with me when I go make these other appointments. Natalio responded: Fine. Natalio gave a similar account: he stated in deposition that Weinberg asked ... for permission [to] leave his bag in the store and come back for it later, and Natalio granted such permission. There was no further discussion of any terms relating to Weinberg's leaving the jewelry bags. 10 Weinberg then went outside to the rental car to get Reisman and the bags, and either Weinberg alone or Weinberg and Natalio carried the bags through the store and into a back room where a vault was located. Natalio accompanied Weinberg into this back room where either Weinberg alone or Weinberg and Natalio placed the bags into the vault. Weinberg left the store and drove off with Reisman. The two came back the next morning to retrieve the bags, but the bags were missing from the safe. A bag left by another salesman in the same safe was not taken. A police report was filed, but nobody has ever discovered the exact fate of the bags. See Astoria Jewelry v. Natalio Barquet, Inc., 291 F.Supp.2d 16, 20 (D.P.R.2003). 11 Weinberg and Reisman had left their jewelry bags at the Barquet store before. Natalio stated that he and his father customarily allowed salespeople to leave their bags in his vault, [a]s a courtesy, when he or his father knew them and they asked permission. Written agreements were never signed in connection with these transactions, and detailed discussions of terms never occurred. Natalio described the entire practice as very customary, very slack, not serious, and ... involving no stipulation as to what the person leaves and when he or she might come back and pick it up. 12 When the Barquet store was closed, it was protected with an alarm system and gates. As well, the vaults were time-locked when the store was closed, including the night of October 23. When the Barquet store was open, however, it is undisputed that both Barquets, father and son, knew that the vault was always open and unlocked. The vault where the bags were placed is located in a back room of the store, accessible from the rest of the store; both the father and the son also stated that customers could, in the ordinary course of business, be left by themselves in that area of the store, without being accompanied by an employee. There were security cameras inside the store, and several video monitors that employees could use to watch the scenes being captured by the cameras. However, the Barquets knew that the cameras were not set up to leave any videotaped record of what went on inside the store. Further, no security personnel were hired to watch the monitors: the regular store employees were charged with this duty, along with their other duties, such as assisting customers. Finally, Natalio and one of his employees testified in deposition that they felt no need to take any measures to safeguard the jewelry bags left in their vault. Natalio stated affirmatively that he took [n]o measure[s] whatsoever to take care of Weinberg and Reisman's bags while they were inside the vault, because Weinberg was merely ask[ing] for a favor.