Skip to main content

Concepts of Bailment.

 Concepts of Bailment. 

By swatee shukla 

There are certain types of contracts where the nature of the relationship between the parties gives rise to certain rights and duties. In addition to the usual rules applicable to contract law, there are special rules attached to the special contracts. Whenever these contracts are entered into, apart from the terms the parties agree on, some conditions apply by default as the law imposes them n the contracting parties. 

Bailment is defined as the delivery of goods by one person to another for a predetermined purpose with the contractual obligation that once the purpose is fulfilled, the goods should be returned or disposed of according to the direction of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is known as “bailor” and the person to whom they are delivered is called “bailee”. 

In the contract of bailment, the bailor is the person with the right of possession over a property. And he is delivering the property to the possession of another (the bailee). The delivery would not be against the wish of the bailor. The possession of the bailee is intended by the bailor to be only temporary. After the purpose of bailment is served, it is to be returned or disposed of according to the wish of the bailor.  Remember that bailment can be either contractual, where there would be the transfer of valuable consideration. Bailment of goods imposes some duties on the bailee. In fact, the relationship of bailment creates certain rights and duties for both the bailor and the bailee. The duty of one is the right of another. 

Duties of the bailee- duty to take reasonable care of goods delivered to him, a duty not to make unauthorized use of goods entrusted to him. duty not to mix goods bailed own goods, duty to return the goods and duty to deliver to the bailor increase or profit on the goods bailed. 

Duties of bailor- duty to disclose faults in goods bailed, duty to repay necessary expenses in case of gratuitous bailment, duty to receive back the goods, duty to pay the ailee if he has done some works or rendered some service on it to improve it, and duty to repay any reasonable cost incurred by bailee in keeping and protecting the goods. 

When any of these duties are breached, the injured parties can claim damages. The list of duties is only an indicative list to give some examples of duties of the bailor and the bailee. If a problem is set on the duties of the bailor or bailee, the principle given with it would contain the duty you need to know about. The bailee, however, is not liable for the loss of the bailed good or any damage to it. Which is beyond his control, when he has taken adequate care to protect it, as much as a reasonable person would have taken in similar circumstances in the case the goods were his own. The bailee would be paid compensation according to the terms of the contract. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more