— — 554 Sect.
Bailment. 2.
Hire of Chattels.
The owner
is also entitled to compensation for the loss caused deprivation of the use of a chattel during the period necessary for its reparation or recovery; and the fact that he has not been compelled temporarily to hire or substitute another chattel for that under repair will not necessarily disentitle him to consequential
to
him by
damages
{b).
Sect. 3.
Hire -Pur chase.
Sub-Sect
1.
Li General.
1124. The contract of hire-purchase, or, more accurately, the contract of hire with an option of purchase, is one under which an owner of a chattel lets it out on hire and undertakes to sell it to, or that it shall become the property of, the hirer, conditionally on his making a certain number of payments (c). Until the making, however, of the last payment, no property in the chattel passes (d). Where the contract between the parties amounts to an absolute Distinguished from sale. agreement to sell and buy, whether the instrument be called a hire-purchase agreement or not (e), the property in the chattel passes upon delivery, provided that such was the intention of the And even where the property has not passed, the soparties (J). called hirer, being really a purchaser, can give a good title to a purchaser or pledgee dealing with him in good faith and without notice of the rights of the original owner (g). Eegistration A written contract for the hire of a chattel with an option of unnecessary. purchase does not require registration as a bill of sale, because no property is conveyed thereby to the person in possession of the chattel during its effective existence (h). The difference between a contract of sale at a price payable by instalments and a contract of hire-purchase is that in the former the purchaser has no option of terminating the contract and Hirepurchase.
{b) See Owners of Steamship Mediana v. Owners, Master and Crew of Lightship Comet, The Mediana, [1900] A. C. 113, where, a harbour board's lightship being damaged by collision, the board put in its place a reserve lightship, and were nevertheless held entitled to substantial damages. (c) Helhy v. Matthews, [1895] A. C. 471 Be Davis (h Co., Ex parte Bawlings (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 193. For forms of Hire-Purchase {d) Cramer v. Giles (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 151. Agreements, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. VI., pp. 453 et seq. (e) It is for the Court to determine the effect of the agreement {McEntire v. Helby v. Crossley Brothers, [1895] A. C. 457, per Lord Watson, at p. 467 Matthews, supra, per Lord Herschell, at p. 475). For the general principles of construction, see title Contract. (/) McEntire v. Crossley Brothers, supra, per Lord Herschell, at pp. 462, 463. (g) The contract between the original purchaser (by instalments) and the person to whom he disposes of the chattel being a valid one within the meaning of the
Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 9 {Lee v. Butler, [1893] 2 Q. B. 318 Wylde V. Legge (1901), 84 L. T. 121 Hull Bopes Co., Ltd. v. Adams (1895), 65 L. J. (q. b.) 114 ; Thompson and Shackell, Ltd. v. Veale (1896), 74 L. T. 130). Qi) Horsley v. Style (1893), 69 L. T. 222 and see McEntire v. Crossley Brothers, supra. Yet what in form seems a sale and subsequent letting may be held to be a-borrow^ing on mortgage and within the Bills of Sale Acts {Maas v. Bepper, [1905] A. C. 102). See title Bills of Sale.
