## Facts

- Schwarzschild entrusted certain items of property to Harrods Ltd for safekeeping under an agreement with specified conditions for return.
- Schwarzschild alleged that Harrods unlawfully retained the property beyond the agreed period, causing financial loss and inconvenience.
- Harrods argued that retention was justified by contractual terms and operational requirements.
- The dispute centered on whether Harrods' retention of the property was lawful under the terms of the bailment agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether Harrods Ltd had a lawful justification for retaining Schwarzschild’s property beyond the agreed period.
2. Whether Harrods breached the bailment agreement by retaining the property without valid legal grounds.
3. What remedies, if any, Schwarzschild was entitled to as a result of the alleged wrongful retention.

## Decision

- The court focused on whether Harrods had acted within the terms of the bailment agreement or had exceeded its authority.
- The court examined whether Harrods provided sufficient evidence of lawful justification for retaining the property.
- Remedies assessed included the return of the property, compensation for loss or damage, and consideration of punitive damages depending on the nature and severity of the breach.

## Legal Principles

- Bailment is the transfer of possession (not ownership) for a specific purpose, requiring the bailee to return or otherwise dispose of property in accordance with the bailor’s instructions.
- A bailee owes a duty of reasonable care to protect the property and must demonstrate lawful justification for any retention.
- Unlawful retention occurs when a party keeps property beyond the scope of the bailment without valid legal grounds.
- Remedies for wrongful retention can include return of the property, compensation for loss or damage, and, in some cases, punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The court in Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd clarified that bailed property must not be retained without lawful justification, reinforcing the obligation of bailees to act within the terms of their agreements and outlining the remedies available for wrongful retention or breach of duty.

Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd [2008] EWHC 521 (QB)