Section 142 to 151

  RJS Section 142-

Guarantee obtained by misrepresentation,invalid 

------any guarantee which has been obtained by means of misrepresentation made by the creditor 

Or with his knowledge and assent 

Concerning a material part of the transaction 

Is invalid.

Landmark decision 

London general omnibus company versus holoway 

Respondent was invited to give guarantee  for  an employee.the employee was suspended before due to embezzlement .but this fact was not disclosed before surety .so that employee was appointed again for that job . He had embezzled in office again .so surety was not liable in this case .

Section 143----

Any guarantee which the creditor has obtained which the creditor has obtained by means of keeping silence as to a material circumstance is valid .

Illustrations 

a.. A engages B as clerk to collect money for him .B fails to account for some of his receipt and A in consequence calls upon him to furnish security for his duly according.C gives his guarantee for B 's duly accounting A does not acquaint C with B's previous conduct B afterwards makes default .the guarantee is valid .

b.A guarantees to C payment for iron to be supplied by him to B to the amount of 2000.B and C have privately agreed that B should pay five rupees per tons beyond market price  such excess to be applied in liquidation of an old debt .this agreed is concealed from A .A is not liable as surety .

Section 144

Guarantee on contract that creditor shall not act on it until co surety joins -----

Where a person gives guarantee upon a contract that the creditor shall not act upon it until another person has joined in it as co surety 

The guarantee is not valid if that other person does not join .

Land mark judgement 

National provisional bank of England versus Brakeburry 

Respondent had signed on guarantee which had been signed by three others persons .but it was not signed by one person .but fabricated signature had been signed .so in this case surety was not liable due to these fabricated signature 

Section 145 

Implied promise to indemnify surety ------

In every contract of guarantee there is an imply promise by the principal debtor to indeminify the surety and the surety is entitled to recover from the principal debtor whatever sum he has rightfully paid under the guarantee,but no sums which he has paid wrongfully.

Illustrations 

a.B is indebted to C and A is surety for the debt .C demands payment from A and on his refusal sues him for the amount .A defends the suit ,having reasonable ground for doing so but he is compelled to pay the amount of debt with cost .he can recover from B the amount paid by him for costs .as well as the principal debt

b.C lends B a sum of money and A at the request of B accepts a bill of exchange drawn by B upon A to secure the amount.C the holder of the bill demands payment of it from A and on A 's refusal to pay sues him upon the bill A .not having reasonable ground for so doing ,defends the suit and has to pay the amount of the bill and costs ..he can recover from B the amount of the bill but not the sum  paid for costs as there was no real ground for defending the action .

C.A guarantee to C to extent of 2000 rupees payment for rice to be supplied by C to B .C supplies to B rice to a less amount than 2000 rupees but obtains from A payment of the sum of 2000 rupees in respect of the rice supplied A cannot recover from B more than the price of the rice supplied .

Section 146 

Co Sureties liable to contribute equally ---where two or more persons are co sureties for the same debt or duty either jointly or severally 

And whether under the same or different contracts 

And whether with  or without the knowledge of each other 

The co sureties in the absence of any contract to the contrary are liable as between themselves to each an  equal share of the whole debt or if that part of it which remains unpaid by the principal debtor .

Illustrations 

A.A ,B and C are sureties to D for sum of 3000 rupees lent to  E .E makes default in payment .A ,B and C are liable as between themselves to pay 1000/ rupees each .

B.A ,B and  C are sureties to D for the  sum of 1000  rupees lent to E .and there is a contract between A ,B and C that A is to be responsible to be the extent of one quarter ,B to the extent of one quarter and C to the extent of one half .E makes default in payment .As between the sureties .A is liable to pay 250 rupees .B is liable to pay 250 rupees .B 250 rupees and C 500 rupees 

  

Contract act 

Section 147 

Liability of co sureties bound in different sums 

Co Sureties who are bound in different sums liable to pay  equally as far as the limits of their respective obligation permit .

Illustrations 

A.A ,B and C as sureties for D enter into three several bond each in different penalty namely.A in the penalty of 10,000/ rupees ,B in that of 20,000/ rupees ,C in that of 40,000/ rupees .conditioned for D 's duly accounting to E .D makes default to the extent of 30000/ .A ,B and C are liable to pay 10,000 rupees.

B.A ,B and C as sureties for D .enter into three several bonds each in different penalty namely .A  in the payment of   10,000 rupees ,B in that of 20,000/ C in that of 40,000/ rupees .conditioned for D ' s duly accounting  to E .D makes default to extent of 40,000/ rupees .A is liable to pay 10,000/rupees and B and C 15,000 each .

c.A ,B and C as sureties for D enter into three several bonds each in a different penalty namely A in the penalty of 10,000 rupees .B in that of 20,000/ rupees .C in that of 40,000/ rupees conditioned for D 's duly accounting to E ,D makes default to the extent of 70,000/ rupees A ,B and C have to pay each the full penalty of his bond.

Chapter no 9 

Section 148.

Bailment,bail and bailee defined -----

A bailment is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose 

Upon a contract that they shall when the purpose is accomplished be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the direction of the person delivering them .the person delivering the goods is called bailor .the person to whom they are delivered is called the bailee.

Explanation -----if a person already in possession of the goods of another contracts to hold them as a bailee .hfe thereby becomes the bailee and the owner becomes the bailor of such goods although they may not have been delivered by way of bailment 

Landmark case 1

Altzon versus Nicols 

Here plaintiff used to go to a restaurant  to eat food .when he used to go  there .a waiter used to take his coat 🧥 and put it on hangar .one day his coat had been stolen . although the waiter had done this for welcome courtesy .but a contract of bailment had been raised .so the owner of hotel is responsible for this loss .

Landmark case no.2 

Kalia perumal Pillay versus vis laxmi 

In this case there was an old lady she used to go to a gold smith .in the evening she used to take incomplete jewellery and put into a cupboard .she used to lock it .one day jwellery was stolen .in this case the gold smith was not liable for this theft .because contract of bailment had not been arised between that woman and gold smith .

Section 149 

Delivery to bailee how made----

Delivery to bailee how made ----;

The deliy to the bailee may be made by doing 

Anything which has the effect of parting 

The goods in the possession of the intended bailee or of any person authorised to hold them on his behalf.

Landmark case of constructive possession 

Fazal versus Salamat Rai 

Respondent had taken a mare of plaintiff in the execution of a decree . plaintiff had paid the money and court ordered to give his mare .he refused to give money . respondent had wanted to take money of its feeding .the mare had been stolen .

Decision ----this is the example of constructive possession .the respondent was liable to  pay the compensation .because contract of bailment had been  arised between plaintiff and respondent.

Landmark decision no.2

Ram Gulam versus state of UP

In this case jwellery of plaintiff had been stolen .the police had arrested the theif and recovered the stolen jwellery .but stolen jwellery had been stolen again from custody of police .the plaintiff had wanted his stolen jwellery.

Decision ---there was no contract between plaintiff and police .so plaintiff could not take any jwellery from police 

Non contractual bailment 

Lasal gaon merchants cooperative society bank ltd.versus prabhu das haathi bhai.

Some boxes of tobacco had been kept in a godown .all the goods had been pledged in the bank.some partners did not give their income tax.so income tax officer had taken in their possession.and locked that godown the tobacco had been spoiled due to excessive rain ☔.here the responsibility of government is like a bailee despite non contractual bailment.

Section 150 

Bailor 's duty to disclose faults in goods bailed

The bailor is bound to disclose to the bailee faults in the goods bailed 

Of which the bailor is aware and which materially interfere with the use of them 

Or expose the bailee to extraordinary risks and if he does not make such disclosure 

He is responsible for damage arising to the bailee directly from such faults 

If such goods are bailed for hire the bailor is responsible for such damage whether he was or was not aware of existence of such faults in the goods bailed .

Illustrations 

A.A lends a horse which he knows to be vicious  to B .he does not disclose the fact that horse is vicious .the horse runs away .B is thrown and injured .A is responsible to B for damage sustained.

b.A hires a carriage of B .the carriage is unsafe through B is not aware of it and A is injured.B is responsible to A for injury .

Landmark case no.1

Hymen and wife versus Nai and sons 

Plaintiff had hired a chaise of two horse 🐎 🐎 🐎 from respondent  to enjoy picnic .bolt of this chaise had been broken and all the family had injured due to carelessness of the respondent .the respondent had lied responsible for their negligence and carelessness.

Landmark decision no.2

Reed versus Deen 

Plaintiff had hired a motor launch to enjoy their summer vacation at the thames river .the fire had been broken out in this motor launch .the extinguisher was out of order so the could not douse the fire 🔥.the respondent held  responsible in this situation .they held responsible for their carelessness under section 150 of Indian contract act .

Section 151.

Care to be taken by bailee

----in all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of his own goods of the same bulk quality and value as the goods bailed