Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Nicholson Vs Chapman: Contracts 2

    Uploaded by

    RAASIQ SHAIKH 1650222
    Chapman found timber belonging to Nicholson that had been carried downriver by the tide and took it to a safe place. When Nicholson demanded the timber back, Chapman refused to return it unless compensated for saving and storing the timber. [Nicholson then sued Chapman for trover.] The court found that Chapman had no legal right to withhold the timber from the owner. However, the chief justice indicated that Chapman could recover reasonable compensation for his services through another suit, as it would be unfair if he was not paid for keeping the goods safe. The case illustrates the legal concept of bailment, where goods are delivered temporarily to another person.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nicholson Vs Chapman: Contracts 2

    Uploaded by

    RAASIQ SHAIKH 1650222
    139 views6 pages
    Chapman found timber belonging to Nicholson that had been carried downriver by the tide and took it to a safe place. When Nicholson demanded the timber back, Chapman refused to return it unless compensated for saving and storing the timber. [Nicholson then sued Chapman for trover.] The court found that Chapman had no legal right to withhold the timber from the owner. However, the chief justice indicated that Chapman could recover reasonable compensation for his services through another suit, as it would be unfair if he was not paid for keeping the goods safe. The case illustrates the legal concept of bailment, where goods are delivered temporarily to another person.

    Original Title

    Contracts CIA (2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Chapman found timber belonging to Nicholson that had been carried downriver by the tide and took it to a safe place. When Nicholson demanded the timber back, Chapman refused to return it unless compensated for saving and storing the timber. [Nicholson then sued Chapman for trover.] The court found that Chapman had no legal right to withhold the timber from the owner. However, the chief justice indicated that Chapman could recover reasonable compensation for his services through another suit, as it would be unfair if he was not paid for keeping the goods safe. The case illustrates the legal concept of bailment, where goods are delivered temporarily to another person.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    139 views6 pages

    Nicholson Vs Chapman: Contracts 2

    Uploaded by

    RAASIQ SHAIKH 1650222
    Chapman found timber belonging to Nicholson that had been carried downriver by the tide and took it to a safe place. When Nicholson demanded the timber back, Chapman refused to return it unless compensated for saving and storing the timber. [Nicholson then sued Chapman for trover.] The court found that Chapman had no legal right to withhold the timber from the owner. However, the chief justice indicated that Chapman could recover reasonable compensation for his services through another suit, as it would be unfair if he was not paid for keeping the goods safe. The case illustrates the legal concept of bailment, where goods are delivered temporarily to another person.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    CIA-3

    Nicholson vs Chapman
    CONTRACTS 2

    Raasiq Shaikh
    1650222
    4BA LLB ‘B’
    Nicholson v Chapman

    Facts:
    A quantity of timber belonging to the plaintiff was placed in a dock on
    the bank of a navigable river. The timber was accidentally loosened,
    carried by the tide to a considerable distance, and left at low water upon
    a towing path. The defendant found it in that situation and voluntarily
    conveyed it to a place of safety beyond the reach of the tide at high
    water. Nicholson made a demand upon Chapman for its delivery, but
    this the latter refused to do unless compensated for his services in saving
    and keeping the timber. Nicholson then brought action in trover.
    Issues:
     Whether a bailment contract is formed between the two
     Whether the timber carried by the tide to the defandant make him a
    finder of goods thus implying bailment
     Whether chapman as a Bailee, should recieve compensation for
    taking care of timber by Nicholson
    Laws:
    Laws that apply here are Section 168 of Indian contract act 1872
    Section 168 of Indian contract act 1872 deals with Right of finder of
    goods; may sue for specific reward offered.
    The finder of goods has no right to sue the owner for compensation for
    trouble and expense voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods
    and to find out the owner; but he may retain the goods against the owner
    until he receives such compensation; and, where the owner has offered a
    specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such
    reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it.
    Analysis:
    In this case, while it was held that Chapman had no lien on the timber
    and consequently no right to withhold it from the owner, Lord Chief
    Justice Eyre intimated that reasonable compensation for Chapman's
    services might be recovered by him in a suitable action. "A court of
    justice," he declared, "would go as far as it could go, towards enforcing
    payment. In many precedent cases it is seen that any person who goes
    through the trouble of keeping the found goods safe should be
    compensated for the same. One may express that Mr.Chapman does
    deserve to be compensated for his effort. Therefore he should have the
    right to lien, which is why, it being held that he does not makes it seem
    unfair in public opinion.
    Conclusion:
    In this case, One sees a textbook illustration of bailment. 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 directions of the person
    delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the ‘bailor’.
    The person to whom they are delivered is called the ‘bailee. In this case,
    Nicholson was the bailor and Chapman was the bailee. In this case,
    while the judgement was not in the favor of the bailee, it still gave him
    the permission to get compensation which he deserves.

    You might also like