— Part
III.
Bailment for Valuable Consideration.
551
Sect. 2. particular purpose for which it was hired, merely by the fact that he has allowed the hirer a preliminary inspection of the Hire of Chattels. chattel (c). It is negligence in anyone to let out to hire a carriage to convey a number of people or a quantity of merchandise without previously taking care that the carriage is reasonably safe (d). And where a horse jobber lets out a horse, there is an implied warranty on his part that the animal is of sufficient capacity and docility for the particular purpose for which it was hired (e). A similar warrant}^ of fitness extends to a servant of the bailor who accompanies a chattel, and whose services are necessary for the proper use and enjoyment of the chattel by the hirer (/), though in this case the warranty of the bailor extends only to those acts of his servant which are within the scope of his employment (g). The implied warranty will not extend to a case where the Hidden immediate cause of an accident is a hidden defect in the chattel defects, let out on hire which no reasonable amount of care on the part of the bailor could have discovered (h). In such, cases the pi'iDid facie evidence of negligence is rebutted, and it is for the ag^^rieved party to show that the resultant injury is one for which the bailor is legally liable in damages (i).
1118. The mere fact of an owner entering into an engagement to a chattel implies a promise or condition on his part to put the hirer into peaceable possession of the chattel hired by him, and to permit him to remain in custody thereof for the purpose of the particular service in respect of which the contract was entered into {k). But where the hirer so conducts himself as to hinder the performance of the contract by the owner, or to subject the owner, if he duly perform the contract, to an action at the suit of some third party, no action will lie against the owner for the non-performance of his agreement (Z), Where the owner has agreed with the hirer to keep the chattel lent in proper repair (rn), the owner is entitled to resume possession let
Jones V. Page (1867), 15 L. T. 619. A jobmaster who Jones v. Page, supra, per Kelly, C.B., at p. 620. lets out a carriage for hire impliedly warrants that it is as fit for use as care and skill can make it {Hyman v. Nye (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 685). (e) Fowler v. Lock (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 272, per Byles, J., at p. 282 Chew v. Jones (1847), 10 L. T. (o. s.) 231. (/) Abraham v. Bullock (1902), 86 L. T. 796. {g) Compare Sanderson v. Collins, [1^04] 1 K. B. 628; Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905] 1 K. B. 237 ; in the latter case the servant supplied (a coachmau) aided and abetted a theft of the bailee's goods, and the bailor was held not liable (c)
(d)
therefor.
Readhead v. Midland Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 412, per Mellor, J., 428 Christie v. Griggs (1809), 2 Camp. 79. {i) Readhead v. Midland Rail. Co., supra, (k) Stoiy on Bailments, s. 385. {1} European and Australian Royal Mail Co. v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. See also Pothier, Contrat de Depot, s. 55 see also (1861), 30 L, J. (c. p.) 247. {h)
at p.
Civil Code of France, art. 1726. (m) This is often to be implied from the nature of the contract {Sutton v. Temple " If a carriage be let for hire, (1843), 12 M. & W. 52, per Lord Abinger, at p. 60.
and
it
break
down on
the journey, the letter of
it is liable,
and not the party who
Quiet enjoy-
ment.
Eepair of hired chattel.
