With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wrights also advanced a bailment theory as part of their breach of contract claim. The district court refused to address the bailment theory because it was not raised in a timely manner. In any event, the claim would fail because no bailment contract was formed. A bailment contract, like all other contracts, requires “a meeting of the minds as to the terms and conditions.” George v. Whitmer, 2006 Ohio 436, at ¶ 17 (Ohio Ct.App.2006) (citations omitted). The Wrights have not alleged facts to demonstrate a meeting of the minds. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that BOA agreed to take delivery, that there was any time-frame for the bailment, that there were any conditions for safeguarding the property, nor that there was any “particular purpose” for the bailment. Id. at ¶ 15 (<HOLDING>). B. The Wrights’ Claim for Negligence The

A: holding that a bailment is a delivery of personal property to another to hold in trust for a particular purpose
B: holding that possessing property of another for the purpose of security on a debt does not give rise to probable cause to arrest
C: holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust
D: holding that employers ability to assign delivery duties to another employee does not make them nonessential
A.