. Manuel takes his family to the Space Needle Restaurant for a special dinner celebration. He drives to the valet parking area, where the staff takes his keys and parks the car for Manuel. They give him a claim check for when the family is ready to pick up the car. The valet service costs $10. When Manuel and family have finished dinner, they present their claim check, but are informed that the car is missing it must have been stolen! When Manuel complains, the valet points to the back of the claim check, where it is printed as follows: Valet Parking is not responsible for theft or other loss of property. Unfortunately, Manuel did have car insurance, but he had not noticed that the insurance policy had lapsed one week before this incident. If Manuel sues the Valet Parking Service for the value of his stolen vehicle, how should the judge rule?

a. The Valet Parking Service was legally responsible for returning the vehicle, under the legal doctrine of bailment, regardless of what the claim ticket said, so Manuel will win.

b. Manuel had a license to use the property and the claim ticket clearly stated that the Valet Parking Service was not responsible for theft or other loss, so Manuel will lose.

c. Manuel had an easement to use the parking space it is a temporary ownership interest in the parking space. Manuel should have gotten insurance. So Manuel will lose.