Bailment-

Ultzen v Nicolls (1894) 1 OB 92- Coat Hanger case- Hotel owner held as bailee.

1.Kaliaperumal Pilliai v Visalakshmi AIR 1938 Mad 32- Goldsmith Case- Possession important for ss. 148 and 149.

2.Atul Mehra v Bank of Maharastra AIR 2003 P&H 11- Bank locker case- Storage in a bank locker is not bailment contract.

3.Bank of Chittor v Narasimbulu AIR 1965 SC1954- Section 149- Constructive delivery.

4.Morvi Mercantile Bank v UOI AIR 1965 SC 1954- Section 149- Constructive delivery possible by transfer of railway receipts.

5.Ram Gulam v Government of UP AIR 1950 All 206- Section 148, 149- For delivery bailment contract has to be there.

6.Overruled in state of Gujrat v Memon mohmed Haji Hasan-setion 151 also- the govt was indeed bailee and state was responsible for proper care.

7.Anjanay-N R Srinivas Iyer v New India Insurance Co (1983) 3 SCC 458- Garage case- Section 149, 148- Insurance company held as bailee and the garage owner as sub-bailee and the car owner as bailor.

Right to lien- The right to retain any property until the charges due in the respect of the property are paid is called right to lien.

8.Hutton v Car Maintenance company (1915) 1 Ch 621- Right to lien in respect of no improvement- Section 170- In a case where the company is not improving the condition of the car but only maintaining it does not give rise to right of lien.

9.Eduljee v Café John Bros ILR 1944 Nag 37- Section 170- The right of lien depends upon of possession and as soon as possession is lost, the right is lost too.- old refrigerator

10.Mercantile Bank v Rochaldas AIR 1926 Sind 225- Section 171 General lien- The general lien of bankers attaches to all goods and securities deposited with them as bankers by a customer of a third person on a customer’s account provided that there is no contract, express or implied inconsistent with such lien.-telegraphic transfer is given for special purpose inconsistent with the exercise of particular lien.

11. R D Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264- S 171 General Lien- Advocates have no right to lien over clients’ papers for aunpaid fee.

Agency

Watteau v Fenwick (1893) 1 QB 346- Section 188 Extent of agent’s authority- Cigar case- The defendants had forbidden the manager of their hotel to purchase cigars on credit. The plaintiff gave cigars to the manager on credit which were used in business. The principal was held liable for all the acts of the agent which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that character notwithstanding limitations.

Agent may be sue by defndentt???

Shephard v Cartwright (1953) Ch 728- Section 183 Who may employ an agent- An infant cannot appoint an agent to act for him neither by means of a power attorney, nor by any other means. If he purports to appoint an agent , not only is the appointment itself void, but everything done by the agent on behalf of the infant is also void and incapable of ratification.

De Busche v Alt (1878) 8 Ch D 828- Section 216 Principal’s right to benefit gained by an agent dealing on his own account in a business of agency; Section 215 Right of principal when agent deals, on his own account, in business of agency without principal’s consent; Section 190 When can an agent not delegate and its exceptions- The plaintiff appointed a Chinese company to sell a ship for 90,000 pounds. With the permission of plaintiff, the company appointed a Japanese agent to sell the ship. The agent bought the ship himself and later sold the ship to a Japanese prince for 1,60,000 pounds. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the profit made on sale. It was held that the agent bought the ship without disclosing the fact to the plaintiff thus he was liable to pay the profits accrued.

Mohinder Das v Mohan Lal AIR 1939 All 188- Section 190 When agent cannot delegate exception Nature of work- A banker is authorized to let out a house and collect rents may entrust the work to an estate agent.

Nensukhdas v Birdichand (1917) 19 Bom LR 948- Section 192 Representation of principal by sub agent properly appointed, sub agent’s responsibility- There is no privity of contract between the principal and the sub-agent and thus he cannot sue the sub-agent except in cases of fraud and or willful wrong. Even when the fraud or willful wrong is established the principal can either sue the agent or the sub-agent.

Keighley, Maxeted and Co v Durant 1901 AC 240- Section 196 and 197 effect of ratification and ratification may be express or implied- An agent bought expensive wheat hoping that his act would be ratified by his principals. However, he never mentioned the principals and contracted in his own name. The principals approved the purchase but when the price of the wheat fell, refused to take delivery. Durant sued the principals and the agent. The principals were held to be not liable as the agent contracted in his own name and thus it was not open to anyone’s ratification.

Nagpur Electric light and power Co v RBSR Pandit- Section 190 When agent cannot delegate exception Nature of work- A banker is authorized to let out a house and collect rents may entrust the work to an estate agent.

Indemnity

Philips v Brooks (1917) 2 QB 243