Bailment

It is essential to show the computers were in Alistair’s actual possession, otherwise, there would be no bailment . In the ordinary course of business, it can be assumed that delivery of the goods occurs when the consignment note is signed. The clause which allows Alistair to sub-bail is indicative of the fact that possession also passed at that time.

The duty to retain possession of the goods wasn’t breached owing to the clause permitting Alistair to sub-contract the freight of the goods.

With respect to his duty to take care of the goods and deliver them as directed, the exclusion clause operates to relieve Alistair of liability for damage to goods ‘in transit’. However, failure of the sub contractor to use due care in the carriage of goods can result in a breach by the bailee of their promise to the bailor . The onus lies on Lionel to demonstrate this, however, more details are needed. For example, was Alistair aware of FabFreight having a partic

Compared with Wilmers & Gladwin v WAL Building Supplies it is reasonable to maintain that Sandy acted as a bailee because it was his employees who moved the computers from the truck into storage. The facts also suggest Rocky had no choice as to where in the building they were placed and it was Sandy controlling access to the warehouse. It wasn’t merely a contract for the hire of space. Rocky meant for Sandy to have both possession and responsibility for guarding the goods and consideration was paid for that reason.

Some topics in this essay:
FabFreight Lionel, Alistair Deakin, Building Supplies, Lionel Lionel, License Sandy, Hobbs Hobbs, Exclusion Clause, Practises Act, Alistair FabFreight, Pty Ltd, exclusion clause, acted reasonably, lionel hardcastle, duty care, actual possession, duty retain possession, alistair lionel, alistair sub, reasonable precautions, breach bailment, duty retain,