Hart operated the Riverside Restaurant and Bakery Shop, which was located on a busy downtown street The front portion of the premises contained the bakery shop, and the rear part of the building housed the restaurant Patrons entering the building were required to pass through the store portion to reach the restaurant in the store area, near the entrance to the restaurant, the owner had installed a number of coat hooks in a recess in the wall of the building. Employees of the shop and restaurant used the alcove to store their overcoats and hats. Wallinsky, a stranger to the community, entered the shop for the purpose of dining, and proceeded through the shop to the restaurant area Along the way he noticed the clothing in the alcove and placed his overcoat and hat on one of the unused hooks. He then entered the restaurant and ordered a meal. Some time later, when he was about to leave the restaurant, he discovered that his overcoat and hat were missing Hart denied responsibility for the loss. Wallinsky brought an action against him for the value of the hat and coat Discuss the arguments that the parties might raise in this case, and identify the legal issue involved Render a decision. Would your decision differ in any way if the coat hooks were located in the restaurant beside Wallinsky's table