Abraham Krakt Case

This case arises out of a business transaction that took place at Abraham Krakt’s place of business, Krakt & Sons Jewelers, between December 2012 and January 2013. Jacques Jameson entered into a bailment contract for work to be done on a diamond ring and is now alleging that Mr. Krakt has not returned the ring and has caused Mr. Jameson damages in excess of $50,000. Mr. Krakt has denied all claims and discovery has been conducted. The parties now wish to attempt to resolve this matter through mediation.
Factual Background Abraham Krakt owned and operated Krakt & Sons Jewelers, a family business, from 1989 until its closing. The business, which was located in the heart of downtown Cleveland, specialized in antique and fine jewelry sales, and

Jameson took the ring to Jewelry Appraisers, Inc. to be appraised, so that he could obtain insurance on the ring. Mr. Jameson filled out paperwork listing the ring’s value at $48,000 and then left the ring with Jewelry Appraisers, Inc. to be appraised. After leaving the diamond ring at Jewelry Appraisers, Inc. overnight Mr. Jameson received a call from the store and was notified that the ring that he had dropped off did not match the rings Mr. Jameson had described in the paperwork being worth $48,000. Jewelry Appraisers, Inc. concluded that the ring that Mr. Jameson now has in his possession is worth $10,000. Mr. Jameson filed this lawsuit over a year later on September 29, 2015.
Claims and Defenses
• Jacques Jameson’s Claims: Mr. Jameson sued Abraham Krakt for claims sounding in breach of bailment contact, conversion, and fraud. o Mr. Jameson alleges that Mr. Krakt has failed to return the ring he dropped off for resizing and in doing so breached the bailment contract he had entered into with Mr. Krakt. o Mr. Jameson alleges that Mr. Krakt fraudulently converted the ring by not returning it. o Mr. Jameson alleges that Mr. Krakt knowingly made false and fraudulent representations about the ring he was returning to Mr. Jameson and by doing so causes Mr. Jameson to reasonably rely on those representations.
• Abraham Krakt’s Defenses: Mr. Krakt has denied all of the allegation contained in the complaint filed by Mr.

Krakt argues that Mr. Jameson’s claims are barred based on the courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction. o Mr. Krakt argues that Mr. Jameson’s claims are barred based on of statute of limitations.
Contested Legal Issues
• Enforceability of the Limitation of Liability: The parties disagree on whether the limitation of liability is enforceable. The limitation of liability, if enforceable, would limit the liability of Mr. Krakt to $300. Mr. Jameson, through counsel, has filed a Motion in Limine with the court arguing that the limitation of liability is unenforceable since he was not aware of the statement and did not accept the terms. Mr. Krakt, through counsel, filed a brief in opposition to the motion arguing the limitation of liability is enforceable under and was accepted by Mr. Jameson as a part of the contract.
• Return of the Ring: The parties disagree on whether the ring was ever returned to Mr. Jameson when he arrived at Krakt & Sons Jewelers in January 2013. Mr. Jameson alleges that Mr. Krakt did not return the ring, and in doing so is liable to Mr. Jameson for breach of bailment contract, conversion, and fraud. Mr. Krakt contends that he did return the ring to Mr. Jameson in January of 2013, fulfilling the bailment contract and returning Mr. Jameson’s