—
Part The
III.
—
"
Bailment for Valuable Consideration.
557
between this contract and that of sale lies in the work and labour results in nothing which can properly be deemed the subject of a sale, inasmuch as the chattel upon which the work is performed, or the materials out of which the chattel delivered to the hirer is made, are already the property of the hirer, and do not, as in the case of sale, become his property by virtue of the contract (li). The contract is none the less one of work and labour, where, though the principal materials belong to
Sect.
distinction
fact that the
4.
Hire of
Work and Labour, Distinguished
from
sale,
the hirer, the workman furnishes accessories or ornaments, as in the case of a tailor, who is employed to make up the hirer's cloth, and who supplies his own buttons and thread (^). Sub-Sect.
2.
Ohligations of the Hirer.
1130. The hirer of labour must, at the time or times and in the manner appointed, pay the workman the agreed price, or, if no
Obligations hirer,
has been agreed upon, a reasonable remuneration for his expenditure of time, labour and skill (/c). The acceptance of services does not in all cases necessarily imply that such services are to be remunerated. Eemuneration cannot be successfully claimed for services voluntarily performed without request {k). But employment of a man, whose trade it is to do the work in question, prima facie implies a contract by the employer to pay him a fair and reasonable price for his work. A person called in to do work of a class which he holds himself out as qualified to do, and which will be useful only if effective, and which he is left to do in his own way, can recover nothing if it proves ineffective, price
and the employer gets no benefit from it (I). The hirer must also pay for all materials
employed
by To
the workman in the manufacture, alteration, or reparation of the chattel which is the subject of the contract, provided they are necessary for the completion of the work, and were either specifically or impliedly ordered (in). And where the work is not completed, whether through the fault of the workman (n) or (h) Lee v. Griffin (1861), 1 B. & S. 272, per Blackburn, J., at p. 277. See also Clay V. Yates (1856), 1 H. & 73 Grafton v. Armitage (1845), 2 C. B. 336 ; Atkinson v. Bell (1828), 8 B. & G. 277 Applehy v. Myers (1867), L. 2 C. P. 651 ; Adlard v. Booth (1835), 7 C. & P. 108 Gillett v. Mawman (1808), 1 Tanrit. See also p. 524, ante, and title Sale of 137, as to the effect of usage of trade.
K
K
Goods. Story on Bailments, s. 423. Compare Taylor v. Laird (1856), 25 [1898] 1 Q. B. 673. L. J. (ex.) 329, per Pollock, C.B,, at p. 332: " Suppose I clean your property without your knowledge, have I then a claim on you for payment ? One cleans another's shoes what can the other do but put them on ? Is that evidence of a contract to pay for the cleaning ? (I) Farnswortli v. Garrard (1807), 1 Camp. 38, per Lord Ellenborough, at " If there has been no beneficial service there shall be no pay, p. 39, who says but if some benefit has been derived, though not to the extent expected, this shall go to the amount of the plaintiff's demand; the claim shall be co. extensive with the benefit." Compare Duncan v. Blundell (1820), 3 Stark. 6, per {%)
{k) Sunipter v. Hedges,
.
Bayley,
.
J., at p. 7.
(m) Story on Bailments, s. 425 Wilmot v. Smith (1828), 3 C. (V) Boherts v. Havelock (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 404.
&
P. 453.
pay
for
^^^^^.^^^g
