This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Aspects Of Obligations Notes

Property Torts Notes

Updated Property Torts Notes

Aspects Of Obligations Notes

Aspects Of Obligations

Approximately 333 pages

Aspects Of Obligations notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes cover all the major LLB aspects cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These notes were formed directly from a reading of the cases and main texts and are vigorous, concise and very well written. Everything is conveniently split up by topic as you can see by th...

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Aspects Of Obligations Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Aspects of Obligations

Bailment & Property Torts

15 September 2011

  1. Bailment

    1. Introduction to Ownership & Possession

    2. General Features

    3. Legal Character

    4. Possession consists of factual control and an intent to exclude others from control

    5. Young v Hichens (1844) (HC) –fisherman had just caught some fish but had not get put the lid on the net. Somebody took them instead and fisherman could not show that he had been in control when the lid had not been put on the net yet

    6. The Tubantia (1924) (CA) –claimants had earmarked a wrecked ship using buoys and lines and defendant interfered. Claimants were in possession because they were exercising the use and occupation of which the subject matter was capable

    7. Can distinguish Young v Hichens because here, they were in a position to prevent defendant from exercising a similar degree of control

    8. Indivisibility

    9. Possession is based on the exclusion of others, and cannot be shared

    10. However, there may be consensual shared possession

    11. Bailor and bailee may also simultaneously possess

    12. The fact that the bailee may recall the item at any time is a reflection on relativity

    13. Great Eastern Railway v Lord’s Trustee (1909) (HL) –defendant had lien over coal that it kept for itself. It was already in possession when it refused claimant to recover it

    14. Extent of Control

    15. An employee will only have custody of items, whereas an employer has possession

    16. This is comparable to other circumstances too (e.g. hotel guests, diners in restaurants)

    17. Acquisition by Finding

    18. Abandoning Possession

    19. Possession may be given up, but if still owned, possession can be later retained

    20. If only possession abandoned, the finder will lose possession if taken up again by owner

    21. Abandoned Chattels

    22. The first finder of the abandoned chattel then takes position of the true owner

    23. Lost Chattels

    24. The first finder of a lost chattel takes a property right subject to the true owner

    25. The finder is deemed to hold as bailee under a fictitious bailment

    26. Therefore, if the finder deals in a way where he would commit the tort of conversion if he were a bailee, he is similarly held responsible here

    27. There is a duty to try to find the true owner, and if this is not complied with, he is no longer immune from the tort of conversion

    28. Parker v British Airways Board (1982) (CA) –passenger at Heathrow found a gold bracelet in the executive lounge and handed it to the airport authority, asking it to be returned to him if true owner was not found. Authority sold it and took the proceeds. There was no intention to control things on premises, so finder had better claim

    29. Would have been different had a notice been put up of intention to control any items

    30. Also would be different with things attached to or under the land–occupier would control

    31. As a matter of policy, law favours occupier when finder is trespassing upon land

    32. Employee finders would have custody while employers would possess

    33. Waverley BC v Fletcher (1996) (HC) –finder discovered medieval brooch under authority’s land but couldn’t claim

    34. Treasure Trove

    35. Prerogative Claim

    36. The Crown has a claim if the chattel found is treasure trove

    37. This is money or coin, gold, silver, plate or bullion that has been hidden

    38. Must be hidden to get around any suggestions it has been abandoned

    39. There is a presumption that they have been hidden if buried or in a place of concealment

    40. Treasure Act 1996

    41. This supplements the common law definition with things at least 300 years old

    42. Includes coins together with other metallic objects with at least 10% gold/silver content

    43. Secretary of State can designate as treasure objects at least 200 years old if important

    44. The requirement that the property be hidden has been removed by this Act

    45. Bailment

    46. Definition

    47. Transfer of Possession

    48. The relationship by which a bailor transfers possession of a chattel to a bailee

    49. Can be at will (recall at any time) or for a fixed period (recall after a certain time)

    50. TRM Copy Centres v Lanwall Services (2009) (HL) –Lord Hope – when goods are given to another on the condition that they be restored to the transferee

    51. Bailor Possession

    52. Bailor must have had possession or a right to possession

    53. Armory v Delamirie (1721) (HC)

    54. Bailee Possession

    55. Bailee will then have possession of the item

    56. Ashby v Tolhurst (1937) (CA) –car park attendant allowed thief to take away car even though he had no ticket nor keys. Car park benefitted from exclusion clause. Held that possession of the car had not passed– there was no bailment.

    57. Voluntary Assumption of Possession

    58. The bailee must receive possession voluntarily

    59. Lethbridge v Phillips (1819) (HC) – picture sent to defendant without the latter’s knowledge. Defendant damaged it but was not a bailee because it was not received voluntarily

    60. East West Corpn v DKBS (2003) –relies on consent rather than contract

    61. The transferee must know that the property belongs to another person

    62. Marca v Christie’s (2004) (HC) –Tuckey LJ –if you are to owe duties to somebody you should have some means of knowing of his existence

    63. Goods Capable of Bailment

    64. The goods must be capable of bailment

    65. Dobon v North Tyneside HA (1997) (CA) –can have possession of a corpse for purposes of disposal and burial. Arguable that a corpse could become property if subjected to a process such as embalming or stuffing

    66. Hoath v Connect Internet Services (2006) (SCNSW) –right to use domain name could not be part of bailment relationship because it was a chose in action, not tangible property

    67. Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust (2009) (CA) – question whether sperm could be owned. Men had ownership since they alone generated and ejaculated. Just because they couldn’t direct it doesn’t mean they don’t own– use of property often encumbered. Sperm couldn’t continue to be stored without their consent and nobody else had rights in it

    68. Types of Bailment

    69. Coggs v Bernard

    70. Six types of bailment have been recognised in Coggs v Bernard

    71. Coggs v Bernard...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Aspects Of Obligations Notes.

More Aspects Of Obligations Samples