The judge had asked if there were relatives willing to be Riza's bailors
Part of every bailment is an agreement, express or implied, by the bailee to return the bailed goods to the bailor.
If a bailment exists, the bailee is expected to return the goods at the end of the bailment period or otherwise comply with directions from the bailor. Provided the bailee does so, it has no liability.
The coat is personal property; possession has been given to the attendant; and an implied agreement exists that the hat-check attendant will return the coat when the patron (bailor) is ready to leave.
Gratuitous promises superadded to gratuitous bailments, for example, are enforceable irrespective of the want of consideration, and essential promises made by sub-bailees to sub-bailors can be enforced against those sub-bailees by contractually unrelated head bailors. (148) The fact that these and other critical aspects of liability in bailment are not reflected in contract and tort justifies the conclusion that the law of bailment is to be treated as an independent and fully integrated body of law, and that all claims in bailment are to be treated as sui generis, beyond the grasp of the 1980 Act.
As we have already observed, sub-bailees can be liable on promissory commitments to head bailors irrespective of the absence of any interlinking contract.
A bailor need have no active role in the creation of the bailment.
A bailee who reasonably suspects that the bailed goods are criminal property might also reasonably expect that the terms of the bailment will entitle him to check the legal status of the goods before transferring them (to the bailor or anyone else) or agreeing to remain in possession.
In SF's favour, the judge agreed that there was no absolute prohibition on a bailee's exercising a right to detain and investigate the provenance of objects where doubts arise about the bailor's title.
The outcome in Jabir was favourable to the bailor but victory must have seemed a close run thing.
Proof of the triggering fact of possession (along with proof that the chattel has suffered loss or damage while in the defendant's possession)(3) rests on the bailor. The bailor must prove the bailment.
concluded that, since on the balance of probabilities the thieves had been supplied with material inside information or assistance enabling them to gain entry, the warehouse company was vicariously liable to the bailor for the resultant loss.