Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/782

 —

Bailment.

560 Sect.

4.

Hire of

Work and Labour.

Exercise of care.

and does not make him an insurer he contracts only to display sufficient skill and knowledge of his calling to perform all ordinary duties connected therewith (^jr) When through negligence or lack of skill the workman fails to perform the work he has undertaken in a workmanlike manner, he forfeits all claim to remuneration (h), and, in addition, becomes liable to the hirer for the loss sustained in consequence of his breach of duty (i). But acceptance by the hirer of the labour after a slight and unimportant breach of the contract may amount to a waiver of such a breach (j). do,



.

1135. As the workman is entitled to a reward, either by express agreement or by implication, he is also obliged not only to perform his work in a workmanlike manner, but also to take ordinary care of the chattel intrusted to him (k), and to restore it to the hirer at the expiration of the period for which it was intrusted to him. If, therefore, he detains it beyond the proper period, he is guilty of a breach of duty, the measure of damages for which is prima facie the sum which would have been earned in the ordinary course of employment of the chattel during the period of its detention (l). Where, however, it is lost or injured whilst in the workman's custody, he will be responsible for the full amount of the damage sustained, unless he can show {m) that the loss or injury is attributable to inevitable accident, inherent vice, or some other extraneous cause and not to any want of care on his part (o). Sub-Sect.

Delegation.

Where

1136.

it is

4.

Delegation.

a condition of the contract that the work

is to

be

done personally by a particular workman, that workman cannot delegate the work to another (p) But in many cases the nature of the work is such that delegation or sub-contracting is permissible {p)..

Where without

the sanction of the hirer there

is

a transference

from the original workman to a third party, there being no privity between the hirer and the actual workman, the latter cannot recover from the former any compensation for his of the contract

services

But

{q).

if

the hirer, after receiving notice that the contract has to a third party, allow the assignee to proceed

been transferred (g) (h) (^) (./)

Lanphier Cousins

v.

Phipos (1838), 8 C.

Paddon

(1835), 2 Cr. Bailments, s. 431.

v.

&

P. 475, per 547.

Tindal,

C.J., at p. 479.

M. & E.

Story on Lucas V. Godwin (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 737. Jones on Bailments, p. 91 Lecky. Maestaer (1807),

(k) 1 Camp. 138 Earnshaw (1818), Gow, 30. {I) Re Trent and Humher Co., Ex parte Cambrian Steam Packet Co. Ch. App. 112, per Lord Cairns, L.C., at p. 117.



Clarke v. (1868), 4

(m) See note (q), p. 552, ante. (n) Story on Bailments, s. 437. (o) Leek V. Maestaer, supra; Clarke v. Earnshaw, supra. Compare Wilson v. Powis (1826), 11 Moo. C. P. 543; Jobson v. Palmer, [1893] 1 Ch. 71 ; BuUen v. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 258. (p) See title Agency, pp. 169, 170, ante. (q) Schmaling v. Thomlinson (1815), 6 Taunt. 147 ; and see Cull v. Backhouse (1793), 6 Taunt. 148, note (a).