may be “based upon breach of the bailment contract which incorporates a bailee’s implied duty of non-negligence (or of workmanlike performance) with respect to the property while in its custody,” and a tort claim may be based in “simple negligence.” Id.; see also AXA Re Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tailwalker Marine, Inc., No. 04-1684-23, 2004 WL 3680276, at *3 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 2004) (citation omitted). A contract for the storage or repair of a vessel constitutes a bailment agreement. See, e.g., Snyder v. Four Winds Sailboat Centre, Ltd., 701 F.2d 251, 252 (2d Cir.1983); Hudson River Cruises, Inc. v. Bridgeport Drydock Corp., 892 F.Supp. 380, 385 (D.Conn.1994) (citation omitted); see also T.N.T. Marine Serv., Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 588 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). A bailment is “the delivery of goods by their
holding that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on an oral representation that the atwill provision of his employment contract did not apply to him when he entered into the contract that expressly contradicted the oral representations holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding that a bailment may arise from an oral contract holding that a special relationship may arise from the factual circumstances of a particular case holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract