Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/781

 — Paet

to the

Bailment for Valuable Consideration.

III.

binding so far as

remainder

—

it

559

can be traced, and the quantum meruit applies

Sect.

4.

Hire of

(y).

Work and 1132. A further obhgation on the part of the hirer is to afford Labour. the ^Yorkman every reasonable facility for entering upon and completing the contract which he has undertaken to perform (z). jj^obstract If the hirer, after the contract has once been entered upon, wilfully workman, obstruct the workman, and thereby retard him in his employment, or intervene without just cause so as to prevent its completion, he is liable to the workman for the loss actually caused by his interA similar duty and liability in case of default is ference {m). imposed upon the hirer, if it be one of the terms of the bargain that he will supply the workman with the requisite materials for the employment undertaken (a).

Sub-Sect.

.

Ohligations of the

3.

Workman,

1133. The first obligation of the workman is to perform his To do undertaking (b), unless the performance is rendered impossible by circumstances beyond his control, as where the chattel upon which the work is to be performed is destroyed by an accidental fire (c). But he is responsible if the impossibility should have been foreseen by him, and the hirer has acted in good faith {d). 1134. The general rule as to all workmen is Spondet peritiam To The acceptance by a person of work of a class which he holds himself out as qualified to do amounts to a warranty on his part that he possesses the requisite skill and ability to do that work (e). But where there is neither a general nor a particular representation of skill and ability, a workman undertakes no artis.

responsibility in respect

want

his

of

of either.

If,

for instance,

one man should employ another who is known to have never done anything but sweep a crossing to clean or mend his watch, the employer probably would be held to have incurred all risks himself (/). Moreover, the public profession of an art or craft amounts only to a representation that the artificer or craftsman is reasonably competent to carry out any work of the class he professes to (y)

5 B.

Napier

&

v.

Lang

(1834), 12

Sli.,

Ct.

of Sess. 523



Shipton v. Casson (1826),

C. 378.

(z) JVells V. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd. (1902), 86 L. T. 764 ; Prickett v. Badger (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 296 ; Gh-eenv. Lucas (1876), 33 L. T. 584 ; Russell Y. da Bandeira (1862), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 149 ; Oourtnay v. Waterford and Central Ireland Rail. Co. (1878), 4 L. Ir. 11. (m) Mackay v. Dick (1881), 6 App. Cas. 251. And see Lilley v. Barnsley (1844), 2 Mood. & R. 548. (a) Pothier, Contrat de Louage d'Ouvrage, s. 410.

K

(6) (c)

Story on Bailments, s. 428. Menetone v. Athaiues (1764), 3 Burr. 1592.

And

see Appleby v.

Myers

(1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 651. (d)

Comhe

v.

Simmonds

(1853), 1

W.

R. 289



Pearce

v.

Tucker (1862), 3 F.

&

F.

136. (e)

{n.

Duncan

s.),

v. Blundell (1820), 3 Stark. 6 Harmer v. Cornelius (1858), 5 C. B. per WiLLES, J., at p. 246 1 Bell's Com., book 3, part 1, c. 3, tit.



"Skill."

(/) Jones on Bailments, p. 100 at p. 246.



Harmer

v.

Cornelius, supra, per AVilles, J.,

the

exercise