Case Study - 3 Kindly read the case below and answer the following Questions. The answers should be based on your core understanding and in your own words. As executor of her late mother's will, Miss J contacted the bank about the safe deposit box in which she said her mother had kept a large amount of jewellery: At first, the bank was unable to locate the box at all. Eventually, the box turned up. But when Miss J examined the contents she said that 30 individual pieces of jewellery - with a combined value of over 48,000 - were missing. Miss J then made a formal complaint to the bank, enclosing a hand-written list that she said was evidence of the jewellery's existence. She said her mother had drawn up the list and attached it to her will, as she had intended Miss J to inherit all the items on the list. Miss J also sent the bank a statement from her friend, Mr. M. He confirmed that he had seen at least 30 items of jewellery in the safe deposit box when he had accompanied Miss J and her mother on a visit to the bank some eighteen months earlier. Dissatisfied with the bank's response to her complaint, Miss J came to us. Complaint upheld: Miss I told us she was aware that a significant amount of building work had been taking taken place at the branch where the safe deposit box was stored. And unsupervised contractors had been working in the secure area where the box had been kept. She said she was also aware that several members of staff had left the branch, and she believed that at least one of them had been dismissed for mis-conduct. It was clear from our investigations that the bank had not taken proper care of the safe deposit box. The box had been moved at some stage, probably during the building work, and the bank had been unable to locate it when Miss J first asked to have access to it. When the box was eventually found, it had been inside another box but not in the secure area. However, we noted that when the box was located, the seals on it had been intact. Miss J said she was sure it would have been possible for someone to ease the seals slightly and create a very small opening. We agreed that was a possibility. But it seemed extremely unlikely that even the smallest item of jewellery could have been removed from such an opening. A number of items were still in the box, including several very valuable rings. It was unclear why they would have been overlooked by any thief who had managed to gain access to the box. The hand-written list was the only evidence that the items of jewellery - now allegedly stolen - had ever existed. None of the jewellery was mentioned in Mrs. J's will, there was no inventory or valuation and the jewellery had never been insured. We noted several inconsistencies in Miss J's account of events. In particular, she gave us contradictory information about the dates when she had last had access to the box - and whether she had signed for it. And Mr. M's account of his visit to the bank differed in several essentials from Miss J's account of that same occasion. Mr. M later wrote to us to say that, on reflection, he thought the visit might well have taken place some months later than the date he had given originally. Overall, we were not satisfied that Miss J's recollections were as accurate as she believed. Because of the lack of evidence about what had actually been in the box, we could not fairly say that the bank should pay Miss J's claim for the items she said were missing. But we accepted that she had been caused considerable upset and inconvenience by the bank's failure to look after the box properly. We said it should pay her compensation of 500 for this. Questions to be answered: Q 1. Kindly explain the above case in your own words