A bailee who commits breaches of a hire purchase agreement (including parting with possession without consent and failure to insure) retains sufficient possessory title to sue a sub-bailee for loss of the bailed goods, provided the conduct does not amount to repugnancy or disclaimer of the bailment. Where a hire purchase agreement provides a specific mechanism for termination on default (requiring notice and opportunity to remedy), the contract is not terminated unless that mechanism has been followed. A bailee for reward bears the onus of proving that loss was not due to its default, and the proper measure of damages is the full market value of the goods under the Winkfield principle. A disclaimer by a liquidator under s 568A(1)(b) of the Corporations Law does not extinguish a cause of action that accrued before the disclaimer.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.