- This topic is empty.
July 30, 2020 at 7:11 am #421Pari AgrawalKeymaster
Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 gives that the bailee is under commitment to deal with the products bailed to him as a conventionally judicious man in his place would have taken under the comparable circumstance. This implies the obligation set somewhere around this area is general and uniform in nature. This area doesn’t accommodate any excellent circumstances; rather it covers all the agreements of bailment.
The fundamental guideline is that the bailee is relied upon to come back to its proprietor the bailed products when the bailee’s the ideal opportunity for ownership of them is finished, and he is assumed at risk if the merchandise is not returned. Yet, that a bailee has acknowledged conveyance of merchandise doesn’t imply that he is answerable for their care regardless. The law of bailments doesn’t make a difference a norm of total risk: the bailee isn’t a back-up plan of the products’ wellbeing; her obligation relies upon the conditions.
If the bailee has taken reasonable care of the goods to him then he will not be held liable for any loss caused to the goods bailed. The bailee’s norm of care is resolved dependent on the motivation behind the bailment and whether it’s to serve the bailee alone, the bailor alone, or to support the two players.
If the bailment is to serve the bailee alone, at that point the bailee owes an obligation of unprecedented consideration. On the off chance that the bailment is to serve both the bailee and the bailor, at that point the bailee owes an obligation of sensible or customary consideration.
For example: Silver was entrusted to a goldsmith for making ornaments. He kept it locked in an almirah and employed watchman for the night. Despite all these precautions the silver was stolen. It was held by the court that the goldsmith had taken reasonable care of the goods and therefore. he was not liable for the loss.
July 30, 2020 at 8:02 am #423Kaanchi AhujaKeymaster
According to section 151, it is the duty of a Bailee to take care of goods bailed to him. Bailee should take care of these goods as an ordinary man will take care of his goods of the same value, quality and quantity.
Thus if the Bailee takes due care of goods then he will not be liable for any loss and deterioration of such goods. Also the bailee needs to take the same degree of care of goods whether the Bailment is for reward or is a gratuitous Bailment.
September 7, 2020 at 1:42 am #619Aribba Siddique
Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 mentions care to be taken by the bailee.
Bailee is a person to whom goods are being delivered. Bailee is responsible to take standard care of the goods bailed. Here, standard care refers to taking necessary measures and precautions just like an ordinary prudent man will take inorder to protect his goods.
For example, A (bailor) transfers some shirts to B (bailee) for dry cleaning. That night before leaving the shop, B while taking due care, lock up his store and takes the keys with him. The next morning, A’s shirt goes missing. Will B be liable?
NO! Because he took all the measures and standard of care required.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.