The bailee is not permitted to dispute the title of the bailor for his own benefit.
Bailments are usually divided into three classes; bailments for the sole benefit of the bailor, bailments for the sole benefit of the bailee, and bailments for the benefit of both the bailor and bailee.
If the bailee yields possession to one whose right of possession and title are inferior to the bailor's, the bailee is answerable to the bailor for any losses sustained.
A bailee has the right to keep the property, to use it according to the terms of the contract of bailment, and to defend this right even against the bailor himself.
It is sometimes said that a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor is not a contract by reason of there being no consideration.
The purchaser takes the same right to the property which the original bailor had, with the additional right to sue the transferor if the title proves defective.
If the bailee uses the property for any purpose other than that for which it was bailed, or if he exceeds the authority of the bailor in the use of the property, he is liable for injuries resulting.
Give an example of a bailment for the mutual benefit of both bailor and bailee.
Where a mutual benefit bailment requires the bailee to use skill in connection with the property bailed, the bailor must exercise a degree of skill ordinarily used by persons who perform similar work.
The majority of bailments are for the benefit of both bailor and bailee.
Anyone who injures the property while it is in the possession of the bailee is responsible either to the bailor or bailee for the damages.
Perhaps the bailor has a right to claim his property again, at any time, if it is bailed gratuitously, though I am not certain.
The latter collects his fee and divides with the officers, while the straw bailor exacts his compensation in proportion to the ability of the victim to pay, then hands over a share to the arresting officers.
While this relation of bailor and bailee exists, the owner is not ordinarily responsible for the negligence of the garageman or his servants in the care or operation of the automobile.
Both parties have in truth an interest in the goods, and in general it may be said that the bailor cannot thus be deprived of his interest and may follow the goods and recover them or their value.
And if workmen had been employed thereon, the bailor would also be obligated to pay for their labor.
A bailorneed not always be the owner of the thing bailed.
If the bailee is not negligent or otherwise at fault, and the loss happened by internal defect or inevitable accident, the bailor would be the loser.
If the hirer should sell the automobile without authority to a third party, the owner or bailor may bring an action against even an innocent purchaser who believed that the hirer had the title and power to sell.
The bailor is not responsible generally for any negligence of the hirer in operating the car.
A corporation may act as bailor or bailee, and an agent acting therefor would render the corporation liable unless he acted beyond the scope of his authority.
A bailee has a lien for his service and proper expenditures in caring for and preserving the thing bailed, but not for any other debt the bailor may owe him.
The bailor also obtained a right of action against the wrong-doer at a pretty early date.
It was to be expected that some action should be given to the bailor as soon as the law had got machinery which could be worked without help from the fresh pursuit and armed hands of the possessor and his friends.
If he has paid his bailor instead, he has paid one whom he was not bound to pay, and no general principle requires that this should be held to divest the plaintiff's right.
The bailor has the power and intent to exclude the bailee from the goods, and therefore may be said to be in possession of them as against the bailee.
The reason usually given is, that a right of immediate possession is sufficient,--a reason which the notion that the bailor is actually possessed.
In one instance, where, against the opinion of Brian, the bailor was allowed to sue for damage to the chattel by a stranger, the action seems to have been case.
The next point in logical order would be the degree of responsibility to which the bailee was held as towards his bailor who intrusted him.
But as the remedies were all in the bailee's hands, it also followed that he was bound to hold his bailor harmless.
To allow the bailor to sue, and to give him trespass, were pretty nearly the same thing before the action on the case was heard of.
Thus, if the advantage is with the bailor alone (e.
The above list will hopefully give you a few useful examples demonstrating the appropriate usage of "bailor" in a variety of sentences. We hope that you will now be able to make sentences using this word.
