Wrights also advanced a bailment theory as part of their breach of contract claim. The district court refused to address the bailment theory because it was not raised in a timely manner. In any event, the claim would fail because no bailment contract was formed. A bailment contract, like all other contracts, requires “a meeting of the minds as to the terms and conditions.” George v. Whitmer, 2006 Ohio 436, at ¶ 17 (Ohio Ct.App.2006) (citations omitted). The Wrights have not alleged facts to demonstrate a meeting of the minds. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that BOA agreed to take delivery, that there was any time-frame for the bailment, that there were any conditions for safeguarding the property, nor that there was any “particular purpose” for the bailment. Id. at ¶ 15 (<HOLDING>). B. The Wrights’ Claim for Negligence The
holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding that employers ability to assign delivery duties to another employee does not make them nonessential holding that possessing property of another for the purpose of security on a debt does not give rise to probable cause to arrest holding that a bailment is a delivery of personal property to another to hold in trust for a particular purpose holding that property a debtor holds only in trust for another is not an interest of the debtor in property under 11 usc  547b which authorizes the trustee to avoid certain preferential payments to creditors made before bankruptcy