We will explore different points of view and provide in-depth information that can help readers understand the concept better. Judgement \u2013 The court held that exclusive possession of the goods is sine qua non for bailment. Therefore, mere hiring of a locker would not be sufficient to constitute a contract of bailment as provided under Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Further, the court said that the question of reasonable care and quantum of damages would arise only after it has been shown that actual exclusive possession of the property was given by the bailee to the bailor, i.e. the bank. Since the bank was not aware of the contents of the locker, hence it was impossible to know the quantity, quality or the value of the jewellery that was allegedly kept in the locker at the time when the robbery occurred. In this case, it was held that there was no exclusive possession to the bank hence no compensation was allowed to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The increase or profit could be in relation with animals, shares, property etc. Section 155 states, that if the goods are mixed with the bailor\u2019s consent, then both the bailor and bailee will have an interest according to their share in the mixture. If the goods are mixed without the consent of the bailor, then the bailee would have to compensate according to the nature of the goods. B has a right to claim the necessary expenses that he incurred for the repair of the grinder from A. If B doesn\u2019t deliver the goods after the work is completed, then A can ask for compensation from B for any loss he suffers due to the non-delivery. Both the bailor and the bailee must be aware of these potential downsides and take the necessary steps to reduce risks and safeguard their interests.<\/p>\n

This may involve creating a precise and thorough bailment agreement, acquiring adequate insurance, and keeping lines of communication open during the bailment time. 4)The bailor is responsible for reimbursing the bailee for any necessary expenses incurred in the preservation or improvement of the goods. 3)The bailor can terminate the bailment before the agreed-upon period in certain situations. The bailor must disclose any known defects in the goods that may affect their use or safety to the bailee. 1)The bailor has the right to demand the return of the goods from the bailee once the purpose of the bailment is accomplished or the agreed-upon period expires. Meanwhile, the establishment and enforcement of contracts including the above bond in India are governed by the Indian Contract Act of 1872.<\/p>\n

Duty to Return Goods (Section<\/h2>\n

In garage were put not only vehicles containing petrol but also other combustibles like thinners and paints. The garage was portioned by wooden walls and a part of it was allowed to be used for cooking purpose. The room in which plaintiffs\u2019 car was kept could not be opened for 15 minutes after the fire was noticed, as the keys of the rooms were not available.<\/p>\n