( Bailment )
Reed v. Dean ( Duty to disclose faults of the goods
bailed )
Held in Reed v. Dean (1949)
In Reed v. Dean (1949), the court held that service providers have a duty
of care to ensure the safety of those using their services.
Facts of the Case:
• The claimant hired a motorboat for a pleasure trip.
• The boat caught fire, and there were no fire extinguishers or safety
measures onboard.
• The claimant suffered losses due to the fire.
Court's Decision:
• The court ruled that the boat owner (service provider) was liable
for negligence.
• It was held that there was an implied duty to ensure the safety of
passengers by providing reasonable precautions.
• The absence of fire extinguishers was considered a breach of duty,
making the boat owner liable for the damages suffered by the
claimant.
( Gurantee )
Pnb v. Vikram cotton mills ( guarantee should do e
for principal ' s default not for any other purpose)
(Agency )
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National
Bank,
the courtheld that a partner who had no authority to sign cheques
could bind the firm by issuing cheques if such action was
necessary for the conduct of the business.
( PARTNERSHIP )
Laxmi Narain Modi v. Commissioner of
In the case of
Income Tax, the Supreme Court held That partnership is a
relationship between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a
Business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. The agreement
between the partners Can be expressed or implied, and can be inferred
from the conduct of the parties.
INDEMNITY
Case: Adamson v. Jarvis (1827)
Facts: Jarvis promised Adamson that he would indemnify him against any losses from contracts
Jarvis made with third parties on Adamson’s behalf. Later, Adamson suffered losses because of
those contracts.
Issue: Whether Jarvis was liable to compensate Adamson for those losses under the indemnity
agreement.
Decision: The court held that Jarvis was liable to indemnify Adamson as he had promised to do
so.
Here you go, bhai! Here’s the detailed and easy-to-understand explanation of the case:
LIEN
Case Name: Madan Lal v. State Bank of India
(AIR 1967 All 123)
Facts of the Case:
• Madan Lal had taken a loan from State Bank of India (SBI).
• He had also deposited some securities/documents with the bank.
• Later, even after clearing one loan, Madan Lal had other dues pending.
• He requested the bank to return the documents.
• SBI refused, saying they would return the documents only when all dues were paid.
Judgment:
• The Allahabad High Court held that under Section 171, banks have a “general lien”.
• So, the bank can retain the documents not only for the specific loan but for all
outstanding dues.
• Therefore, SBI was legally right in not returning the documents.
