Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/775

 — — Part

—

Bailment for Valuable Consideration.

III.

the owner, even though the repah's are necessary and the expenditure reasonable, and therefore it is advisable for him not to execute them without first consulting the owner (h). If, however, it is a term of the contract between the parties that the hirer shall keep the chattel from injury, such a condition amounts, by implication, to an authority from the owner to the hirer to do all acts necessary for preserving the thing hired, and, as against the owner, a third party can acquire a lien on the chattel for the cost of repairing it at the request of the hirer (c).

553 Sect.

2.

Hire of Chattels.

1121. The hirer must not use the chattel hired for any purpose Use of chattel other than that for which it was hired thus, a horse hired as a for purpose not contemhack and not for hunting or driving, must be used as a hack only, plated. and the hirer will be responsible in case of damage arising from its use for any other purpose (d) He must also return the chattel hired at the expiration of the Keturn of agreed term (e). But if the performance of his contract to return the chattel hired. chattel becomes impossible because it has perished, this impossibility (if not arising from the fault of the hirer or from some risk which he has taken upon himself) excuses him (/).

—

.

Sub-Sect.

4.

ResponsiMUty for Negligence of Servant.

within the Negligence ^^'^^^^ scope of his employment, is the negligence of the master, even though the servant be doing something he has been told not to do, if he does it in the ordinary course of service and for the apparent benefit of his master {g). But if a servant use the hired chattel for his own purposes outside the scope of his employment, or if he wilfully injure it, the hirer is not responsible Qi).

1122. The negligence

of the servant of a hirer, acting

•

Sub-Sect.

5.

Measure of Damages.

1123. If the chattel is injured by the negligence of the hirer, Measure of damages, the owner can recover against the hirer, not only the actual loss sustained by reason of the permanent depreciation in value of the chattel injured, but also all reasonable sums paid by him for its reparation. Thus, in the case of an animal which is injured, the amount of damages recoverable will include not only the farrier's bill for keep and treatment, but also the difference between the animal's original and subsequent value {a).

{d)

See Story on Bailments, s. 392. Keene v.^Thomas, [1905] 1 K. B. 136. Burnard v. Haggis (1863), 14 C. B. (n.

(e)

Mills

(6) (c)

s.) 45. (1804), 1 Bos. & P. (n. r.) 140, per Mansfield, C.J., at This and the last cited case are cases of infant hirers, who cannot be sued p. 145. upon the contract of bailment (unless the thing hired is a necessary), but may be sued upon torts arising out of it. See title Infants. (/) Taylor v. Caldwell (1863), 3 B. & S. 826, per Blackburn, J., at p. 838. TVard r. Ig) Limpus v. London General Omnibus Go. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526 General Omnihus Go. (1873), 42 L. J. (c. P.) 265. See also titles Agency, p. 212, ante,

V.

Graham



and Master and Servant. (h) Sanderson v. Gollins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628, distinguishing Coupe Co. v. Maddick, Cheshire y. Bailey, [1905] 1 K. B. 237, ^^er Collins, M.R., at [1891] 2 Q. B. 413 Ward v. General Omnihus Co., supra. p. 240 (a) Hughes v. Quentin (1838), 8 C. & P. 703.



of