Loss of goods in possession of bailee Onus of proof as to negligence of bailee

Loss of goods in possession of bailee onus of proof

This preview shows page 105 - 106 out of 119 pages.

show, that the external damage must have resulted in damage to the contents. Loss of goods in possession of bailee---Onus of proof as to negligence of bailee: Where goods are lost or destroyed while in .possession of bailee the onus of placing all the materials in his possession or knowledge is on the bailee, while the onus of establishing negligence is on the plaintiff. Carriage of goods by sea from foreign port to Pakistan---Damage to goods---Contract Act applies. - -- The provisions of the rules to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 do not apply in relation to carriage of goods by sea in a ship carrying goods from a foreign port to a port in Pakistan, as is the present case. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the parties have to be ascertained by reference to the proper law of the contract which in this case, is the Pakistan law. Buyer rejecting goods---If can sell them to recover ware-house charges for storing them.--- The buyer rejected the goods and then disposed them of in order to recover the ware-house charges for having stored them. He contended that he as a bailee had the right to do so. Held: The buyer of the good is having rejected them and thereafter selling them as the goods belonging to him, stands on a different footing than the bailee contemplated under sections 151 and 170 of the Contract Act. The principle on which a bailee is entitled to dispose of the goods or has lien on the goods bailed with him are entirely different and are not applicable to the case of the sale of goods. As discussed above, the buyer of the goods after rejecting them has no lien on the goods in dispute and must place them at the disposal of the seller for dealing with them in any manner he likes. Loss of goods during transit---Railway liable---Absence of brake---Negligence of railway: --- Where goods were lost during transit and it was found that there was no vacuum or brake in the van of the guard so that the train could not be stopped in case of theft in the running train. Held: There ought to be a vacuum in a train in order that in case of theft while it is running it may be stopped. That a vacuum should be there in the brake of the guard is not denied and the failure to keep a vacuum against the rules would be negligence. Therefore the failure to provide brake should be considered a negligent act on the part of the Railway. Held further: That there is no satisfactory evidence from which it could be inferred that they had taken proper care of the consignment as bailer of the goods consigned. Therefore, the railway was liable for the loss of goods. Pledge It has been defined in section 172 of the Contract Act which is given below: "Pledge," "pawnor," and "pawnee" defined. The bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or performance of a promise is called "pledge". The bailor is in this case called the "pawnor." The bailee is called the "pawnee." ¾ The pledgee has actual control of pledged stocks/goods.
Image of page 105
Image of page 106

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 119 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture