Standard of Care to be taken by Bailee

Forums The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Standard of Care to be taken by Bailee

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #3421
    leaglesamiksha
    Keymaster

    Sec 151 of the Indian Contract Act explains that “bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence“.
    Ques: Is the Bailee liable for the loss of goods even if he takes reasonable care of the goods? What about when he agrees to take special care of goods?

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Replies
    • #3424
      leaglesamiksha
      Keymaster

      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.
      ~ Pari Agrawal

      • #3425
        Intern
        Participant

        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.

        ~ Kaanchi Ahuja

        • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Intern.
      • #3426
        Intern
        Participant

        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.
        ~ Aribba Siddique

    • #3430
      Intern
      Participant

      Question: – As per section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, can a person be held liable for the damage of good which belongs to another person?
      Section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with ‘responsibility of finder of goods’. This section states that “a person who finds goods belonging to another, and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee”.
      The interpretation of this section enumerates that the liability of a person, who used or destroyed another’s belongings, will be liable in the same manner as the liability of bailee, which has been discussed under section 151 and 152 of ICA, 1872.
      Section 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 talks about the care, which needs to be taken by bailee and the liability for the things bailed to him, respectively. Both these sections clearly mentioned that a bailee is bound to take care of the thing bailed to him in a well prudent way as a common man will do care, otherwise, he would be liable for the loss and damage caused to the good. However, his liability will not arise if he has taken all due care and there is no negligence from his part.
      Thus, under section 71 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person will be liable, only if, the finder of goods has not taken due care of good and due to his irresponsible behaviour or negligence; the loss has been suffered by the original owner of the good.
      ~ ASHISH RANJAN

    • #3431
      Intern
      Participant

      It is the duty of the bailee to take reasonable care of the goods which is stated under section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, in respect of goods bailed to him. The bailee is bound to take as much care as the goods belong to him. The standard of care is same whether the bailment is gratuitous or for reward.
      So, a bailee is liable when the goods suffer loss due to the negligence on the part of bailee. However, under Section 152 of the Act, the standard of care of ordinary prudent man can be increased by entering into a contract, between the bailor and the bailee. In that situation the bailee, in order to save himself from any liability, would be bound to take as much care, as provided by the terms of contract. In the absence of any such contract, if the bailee has taken care as an ordinary prudent man of the goods bailed, he is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods bailed. To explain the lines with an example, if a diamond ring is kept by its owner A for safe custody with another person B and B is not to receive any reward for it. the bailee should keep it locked in an iron safe, or some other safe place but not keep it in his lumber room, simply because the bailment is gratuitous.
      Similarly, if a cow is delivered for safe custody it is sufficient if it is kept in the backyard properly enclosed and even if it is for reward, no one would expect it to be kept in the drawing room. If the goods get stolen, lost or otherwise destroyed, even after the bailee has taken reasonably good care, the bailee would not be liable for this loss. The bailor, would have to bear this loss.

      ~ Priya Singh

    • #3432
      Intern
      Participant

      As per section 151 of Indian Contract Act it is the duty of the bailee to take reasonable care of the goods bailed as per the bailment. He is responsible to take the reasonable care as a normal man would need in course of protection. He will be held responsible for the loss occurred if he don’t take any reasonable care. But as per section 152 of Indian Contract act if there is any extra need of care need to be taken by the bailee towards the goods bailed then bailor under this section may include the extent of the other care which has to be taken by the bailee. And make him liable for any loss if he don’t take care as per agreed upon the contract. And if there is case where the bailor forgets to tell the bailee to handle the goods bailed with extra care then inorder to avoid the liability of bailee from his side he have to take the reasonable care which is mentioned as the duty of him to maintain under section 151 of the Indian Contract Act. For example if gold is entrusted to goldsmith for making a ornament out of it.So,in this case the Goldsmith is the bailee and the person who gives gold is the bailor.So,the goldsmith arranged a safe inorder to protect the gold from any unauthorized use.This is reasonable care is enough to avoid liability from the bailee side.If there is no safe and it is permitted to everyone to use gold as if they can then there is a problem and bailor can sue bailee for that.And in other case the bailor himself agreed to contract with bailee for arranging a watchman around a safe as per section 152 of Indian Contract and then tells that he is going to bear expenses of watch man for the protection of gold. But,the bailee making use of it was reluctant to arrange watchman around the safe for protection. But he took reasonable care which was specified as per section 151 of Indian Contract Act even though he takes reasonable care he is still liable for not maintaining a watchman.This is the working of sections 151 and 152 of Indian Contract act.

    • #3669
      leaglesamiksha
      Keymaster

      Sec 151 of the Indian Contract Act explains that “bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence“. Is the Bailee liable for the loss of goods even if he takes reasonable care of the goods? What about when he agrees to take special care of goods?
      Ans: Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that “In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk quality and value as the goods bailed”. Exploring this section we can say that there can be no specific bar set for measure of care of the product bailed. During bailment it is assumed that the bailee would take utmost care of the products or goods bailed to him. According to section 152, in the absence of any special contract the bailee would not be found guilty due to loss of the bailed item if it was assured that he/she had taken utmost care of it and took all the possible measures to prevent any mishap. However, the bailee could be held liable for the loss of the bailed product if there is gross negligence on his part and had not taken necessary measures to prevent such loss. In case of any loss or theft of the bailed product the burden of proof is on the bailee to show that he had taken reasonable care and if he is able to prove this then he will not be held liable. He must provide to the court with evidence that he had take necessary steps to prevent and foreseeable damage or loss.
      Example: ‘A’ bailed his car to ’B’ for travelling to a certain place. ‘B’ upon reaching the place parked the car on the road instead of the parking space and forgot to lock it in hurry. Upon his return he found that the car had been stolen. ‘A’ filed a case against ‘B’. The court ruled that ‘B’ is liable for the theft and should compensate ‘A’ for the loss of his car.

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Comments are closed.