—
552 Sect.
Bailment. 2,
Hire of Chattels.
Hmited purpose of executing such repairs (n). said that the hirer, if actually inconvenienced thereby, is entitled to an allowance or reduction from the rent for the period of the chattel for the
But
it is
during which he has been deprived of the use of the chattel (o), though this probably depends on the nature of the thing itself and the inferences to be drawn from the terms of the contract and the surrounding circumstances. hired
Sub-Sect. To pay rent
3.
Obligations of the Hirer.
1119. The hirer must pay the rent agreed upon for the use of the chattel hired and if the hiring be for a definite period, he is not discharged from his obligation to pay the price for the full period, by returning the chattel to its owner before the expiration of that period (p). But if the owner on receiving the chattels back acquiesces in their return as ending the contract, he cannot afterwards maintain an action against the hirer upon the agreement the voluntary reception amounting to rescission of the contract, unless a fresh agreement to pay for such use as has been enjoyed by the hirer can be implied {p).
To take reasonable care.
1120. The hirer is, as a general rule, under an obligation to take reasonable care only of the chattel hired, and is not liable for loss or injury happening to it, unless caused by his negligence, or that His liability, however, may be extended or of his servants (q). diminished by the terms of a special contract, which, however, will be construed with reference to the age and condition of the particular chattel at the time of the hiring (?•)• Apart from special contract, the hirer is not responsible for fair wear and tear (s), nor is he under any obligation to do any repairs (t) except such as are naturally incidental to the due performance of his obligation to take reasonable care (a). If he should exceed his duty, and execute repairs for which he is not responsible, it is doubtful whether he has any right to claim to be reimbursed by
hired it." But the cost of feeding a hired horse usually falls on the hirer (Story on Bailments, s. 393). (n) Story on Bailments, s. 385. (o) Pothier, Contrat de Louage, s. 77 ; Domat, book 1, tit. 4, s. 3, art. 7. Wright v. Melville (1828), 3 C. & P. 542. (j>) Bray v. Mayne (1818), Gow, 1 (q) Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628 Handford v. Palmer (1820), 2 Brod. & Bing. 359 ; Dean v. Keate (1811). 3 Camp.^ 4, where the hirer of a horse prescribed for it himself when it fell sick instead of calling in a veterinary surgeon. The fact that the chattel is injured whilst in the hirer's possession raises a prima facie presumption against him. See Dollar v. Greenfield, Times, May 19, 1905, per Lord Halsbury, L.C., and the cases cited in note '{%), p. 545, ante, the principle of which would seem to apply here. Contra^ Cooper V. Barton (1810), 3 Camp. 5, n. (r) Schroder v. Ward (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 410. (s) See Pomfret v. Ricroft (1770), 1 Saund. 321 ; Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. & B. 1035, cases of gratuitous loan, but the principle seems
to apply here.
Temple (1843), 12 M. & W. 52, per Lord Abinger, C.B., at p. 60 ; For a case of special contract excluding (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 685. such repairs, see Reading v. Menham (1832), 1 Mood. & K. 234. [t)
Sutton
Hyman '
v.
(a) E.g.,
v.,
Nye
feeding a hired horse
see Story
on Bailments,
s.
393.
