In the "Case Nugget," Ziva Jewelry Inc., v. Car Wash Headquarters Inc., the plaintiff left his car and keys with a car wash employee and a thief drove off with the car, abandoning it unharmed after stealing jewelry valued at over $800,000 from the car's trunk. What was the final holding of the court in this case

That the car wash was not liable to the plaintiff because the car wash employees had no notice they were taking responsibility for so much jewelry.

Explanation:

The case of Ziva Jewelry Inc., v. Car Wash Headquarters Inc involved a salesperson Stewart who locked jewellery in his car and took it to the car wash.

He did not disclose that there was expensive jewelry in the car.

The attendant finished washing the car and signalled to Stewart that his car was ready and walked away from the car.

Before Stewart could pay the bill someone had taken the car. Although the police recovered the car the jewellery was stolen.

Zeva Jewellry filed a motion against the car wash that they did not excercise due care in returning the vehicle.

In this instance the car wash was not liable because Stewart did not disclose there was expensive jewelry in the car.

Also the attendant had finished with his car and informed him of this. So it was out of their care when the car theft occured

answer; ///i believe that the correct answer is (a) it is the means by which a person earns money;