Law Notes Aspects Of Obligations Notes
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...
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:
bailment
Definition: TRM Copy Centres v Lanwall Services UKHL 09 Lord Hope: ‘bailment embraces all situations in which possession of goods is given by one person to another upon the condition that they shall be restored to the person by whom possession has been given, or deal with as he directs, upon expiry of the agreed period of possession’
May be ‘at will’ (bailor has right to unilaterally terminate bailment) or fixed/determinable period
Bridge: if pursuant to contract then contractual incidents, if no contract, rights in tort
note: can have sub-bailment (may be a direct r/s between head bailor & sub-bailee)
bailor = giver of possession, bailee = receiver
bailor had possession/right to possession
Not the same as ownership…
Need factual possession (physical control) + intention to possess (or a right to it)
Armory v Delamirie 1712 chimney sweep found jewel (took possession) then left with jeweller - bailment r/s created
bailee put into possession
There is a fine line between assuming possession (bailment) & simply permission to leave something and land (a license)
Bailment = the transfer of possession & voluntary acceptance of CL duty of safe keeping
License = permission to leave & no responsibility - Odone v Hawarden Services
Ashby v Tolhurst C parked in D’s carpark, where a thief drove the car away, telling the attendant he had permission - C argued bailment & that D breached duties - held no - there was no transfer of possession!
It was said it would have been difference if the car was left for D to sell or had the keys been given
bailee voluntarily accepts possession of property belonging to another
It was previously thought that consent was needed from both parties but the current view is that the bailor’s state of mind is irrelevant - only need the bailee to voluntarily assume possession - The Pioneer Container
Voluntary assumption of possession
Lethbridge v Phillips C lent paining to X, who lent it to D’s son (wanting D to see it). Son put it on mantlepiece, was damaged. C argued D was bailee - no because was no voluntary assumption
Note also the suggestion here of direct r/s with the sub-bailee
Knowledge that the property belongs to another
Marcq v Christie’s: ‘If you are to owe duties to someone else you should know or at least have some means of knowing of their existence’
Here T stole M’s painting. X was the bona fide purchaser, who took to Christie’s (auctioneers). It was unsold when M discovered it & surf for bailment & conversion - held no bailment as C had no idea it belonged to M - seems to lay down an objective test, but the result suggests a subjective one
Its outcome must be correct - surely cannot owe obligations to someone you don’t know
But an objective test would appear to make ownership a requirement of bailment
Although could explain it via a relativity of title theory i.e acknowledge that someone has a better possessory title than you
goods must be capable of bailment:
Must be tangible property
Must be able to return the exact same item - if object is money, only bailment if you can return the exact same note/coin
Must be capable of ownership
Taylor v Chester: half a 50 note - yes
Dobson v North Tyneside HA: body parts which are preserved - yes (normally not body parts)
Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust: doubted Dobson & considered theoretical discussion of ownership - gives owner control etc - statute meant Cs retained sufficient control over sperm to be owners of it
Hoath v Connect Internet Services 06 Aus case - internet domain name -no - intangible!
Rights & duties
Bailee/bailor and third parties - e.g when T interferes with the property
Bailee v T: e.g when T interferes with the property
The Winkfield 1902 Collins MR ‘as between bailee & stranger, possession gives title - that is not a limited interest, but absolute and complete ownership’
Thus bailee standing to sue in tort - here mail lost at sea due to T’s negligence
note Tort (Intereference with Goods) Act 1977 s.8 T can argue that there is someone with better title tan Bailee - Bailor joined in proceedings - T will have to pay out but court will distribute it fairly between Bailee & Bailor - not much of a defence!
Bailor v T: can also sue T under certain conditions
Where bailor has immediate right to possession - can sue in full using property torts
e.g O’Sullivan v Williams bf left car parked with gf, car damaged negligently by T, bf succeeded in claiming neg - had immediate right to possession
Where bailor does not have immediate right to possession - if permanent loss/destruction bailor can sue, but not if only temporary damage - HSBC Rail v Network Rail
Here bailor has a reversionary interest - only claim if that interest permanently injured
Duty to account: where bailee sues, must account to bailor
The Winkfield would seem odd if Bailee (not absolute owner) could recover the full value of the chattel
O’Sullivan v Williams suggests sometimes bailor will be under duty to account to bailee - CL ruled reinforced by s.3 T(IG)A 1977
Bailor & bailee’s claims are mutually exclusive: if one succeeds, the other barred
Avoids double liability - O’Sullivan v Williams
reinforced by s.7(4) and 7(2) T(IG)A 1977
Bailor & bailee
If there is a contract, parties can sue under that & if exceed the terms of the bailment, can sue in property torts
but these seem to be separate obligations… can sue for breach of bailment obligations
Obligations of a bailee - per Mance LJ in East West Corp v DKBS
3 basic duties (i) not to commit conversion ii) abide by any contractual term (iii) take reasonable care of the property & return it at end of bailment term
Mance suggested (iii) was only one, created & explicable by separate bailemtn source of obligations
Bailee’s duty of care
Southcote’s Case 1601 obligation on Bailee = absolute - property stolen but still liable
Coggs v Bernard 1703 softened the strict rule - the more...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Aspects Of Obligations Notes.
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...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started