finder of last goods

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE FINDER OF LAST GOODS AND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES

SUBJECT LAW OF CONTRACTS

NAME OF THE FACULTY Mrs. CHLAKSHMI MADAM

Name of the Candidate: M.SHIREESHA Roll No. & Semester: 2015065 & 2ND SEMESTER Year: 1st YEAR

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our lecturer Mrs. Lakshmi madam who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic FINDER OF LAST GOODS AND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.

2

CERTIFICATE TITLE OF SUBJECT: LAW OF CONTRACTS NAME OF FACULTY: CH. LAKSHMI MADAM I MAKKALA SHIREESHA hereby declare that this project case study: FINDER OF LAST GOODS AND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES Submitted by me is an original work undertaken by me. I have duly acknowledged all the sources from which the ideas and extracts have been taken. The project is free from any plagiarism issue.

PLACE: Vishakhapatnam.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………..….2 ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………..…….4 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….10 2. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT…………………………..…..11 3. QUASI CONTRACT……………………………………………………..…12 4. BAILEE DUTIES TOWARDS BAILOR……………………………….…..18 5. FINDER OF LAST GOODS AND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES……………..22 6. CASE LAWS RELATING TO FINER OF LAST GOODS…………….…..23 7. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………25 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………26

Cases list

4

Case

Page number

Balfour vs. Balfour

11

Mulamchand v. state of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 12 SCR 214, AIR 1968 SC 1218 at 1222 per shah J Mukundi vs. sarabsukh, ILR(1884) 6 All.417

14

State of Karnataka vs. Stellar Constructions

15

Damodara Mudailar vs. Secretary of State for India

16

V.R. Subramanyam v B. Thayappa, AIR 1966 SC 17 1034: (1961) 3 SCR 663 Fackle vs. Scottish imperial insurance Co, (1886) 17 34Ch D 234(CA) Macclesfied corporation vs. Great central Rly Co, 17 (1911) 2 KB 528 (CA) Exall vs. Partridge

17

Trustees, port trust of the Bombay V. premier 18 Automobiles, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1982 Ultzen vs. Nicols

18

Kaliaporumal Pillai vs. Visalakshmi

19

Kalyani breweries vs. State of West Bengal

20

Union of India vs. Udho Ram & Sons

21

Isaack vs. Clark

23

5

Binstead vs. Buck

23

Nicholson vs. Chapman

24

Union of India vs. Amar singh

24

ABSTRACT Our society depends upon free exchange in the market place at every society. The interaction in the market all the times depends upon voluntary agreements between individuals or other legal persons. Such voluntarily agreements can never become

6

binding without a legal contract. The contract law is originated from the development of common law. Contract law is based on number of Latin principles, out of which consensus ad idem most important which means agreement between them. A contract is agreement two or more persons, creating an obligation between them to fulfill some duties laid down specifically in the agreement. This contract creates a legal relationship of rights and duties on the parties. All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract and objects lawful, some consideration. If lapse in the anyone of the elements it will be void. The term contract, is defined in section 2(h) of Indian contract Act 1872 as An agreement is enforceable by law is contract for the formation of a contract there must be 1. Agreement 2. The agreement should be enforceable by law The finder of last goods is a person who finds the goods of another but not knowing the true owner at that time. He is bound by the law to take appropriate care of goods until the true owner is found. In literal sense, his position is a mere a custodian of the goods. Finder of last goods is a part of quasi contract or certain relation created by a contract. The finder of last goods has the same duties like bailee. This mentioned in the Indian contract Act 1872, under 71. Sections 168, 169, 151, and 152 & 157, 160 and 161 of the Indian contract Act 1872 deals with the finder of last goods and his responsibilities towards the goods. The Supreme Court has given some rules regarding the finder of last goods in the case of union of India vs. Amar Singh

SYNOPSIS A person, who finds goods of another, takes him into custody, is liable as a bailee of the goods. A person who finds goods in a public place is not bound to take charge of it, but an occupier of land is under an obligation to search for goods lost on his 7

property, and to take them into custody 1. Once finder accepts the responsibility for the goods, his liability is that of gratuitous of bailee. OBJECTIVES/AIMS OF THE STUDY The objective of the study is to understand and observe the finder of last goods duties and obligation under the purview of Indian contract Act 1872. How it is applicable present scenario. SIGNIFICANCE & BENEFIT OF THE STUDY The significance of the study is that to analyze what the similarities and difference are among quasi contractual obligation, finder of last goods, bail. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The scope of the study limited to the common law and Indian law. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The process used to collect information and data for the purpose of making decisions. The methodology may include publication research and other research techniques, and could include both present and historical information. In this project the researcher is using “doctrinal type methodology”. HYPOTHESIS The finder of goods takes the custody over of goods until the true owner is found. LITERATURE REVIEW 1) Rk bangia – law of contracts volume 1 and volume 2 2) Avatar singh – law of contracts 3) The Indian contract act 1872 and specific relief acts – Nilima Bhadhade 4) The Indian contract act – kesava rao 5) The Indian contract act 1872 bare act ARTICLES

1

Section 151 and 152 under Indian contract act.

8

1. Indian journal of research paripex research paper by madhu sudhan das Position of the Finder of the Lost Goods under the Indian Contract Act: An Analysis CONCLUSION Finder of goods is bound to perform the duty like quasi contact. CHAPTERIZATION: The project deals with the each chapter following ways. 1 chapter deals with the importance of contracts, types of contracts, introduction part 2 chapter deals with the essential elements of contract 3 chapter deals with the quasi contacts 4 chapter deals with the bailment and baillee and bailor, responsibilities and duties of bailor 5 chapters of deals with the finder of last goods and his responsibilities and section of Indian contract Act, 1872 which are involved in the finder of last goods 6 chapter deals with the case laws and illustrations which are relevant to finder of last goods 7 chapter deals with the deals with the conclusion part which simple deals with finder of last goods applicability in present scenario and moreover.

1) INTRODUCTION Contracts have become indispensable part of our life. Whether we know it or we don’t, we enter into a contract at every second of our lives. When we purchase vegetables in the market or go to watch a movie in the evening, we enter into a contract. When we purchase some goods form market, we enter into ‘the contract of

9

sale’. In the same way, when we leave our vehicle at a workshop for repair, we enter into “the contract of Bailment” etc. contracts are several types we are dealing with different types of contracts in daily life. Each contract creates some rights and duties upon the contracting parties. The Indian contract Act deals on the contracting parties. The objective arising out of a contract is honored and that legal remedies are made available to an aggrieved party against the guilty party. Based on

Based on formation

Based on validity

Based on time

Bilateral

the

common law

Performance Unilateral

Under

Express

Contract: Valid

(According Sec.9 of the Act) Implied Contract

Contact

to [Sec2(h)] Voidable

Executed Contract

Formal contracts

Simple Contracts

[Sec.2(I)]

Quasi-Contract E- Contract

– Executory

Void Contract[Sec.2(j)] Void Agreement [Sec.2(g)] Illegal Contract Unlawful Contract Unenforceable Contract

2) ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT DEFINATIONS OF CONTRACT

10

Salmond- defines - “Contract is an agreement creating and defining obligations between the parties.” William Anson defines - “A legally binding agreement made between two or more persons by which rights are acquired by one or more to acts or forbearances on the part of other or others.” Sir Fredrick Pollock defines – “Every agreement and promise enforceable at law is a contract.” Halsbury’s Laws of England— “An agreement made between two or more persons, which is intended to be enforceable at law.” Sec.2 (h) of Indian Contact Act 1872 defines a Contract as “an agreement enforceable by law.” Essential elements of a contract: (A) An Agreement and (offer and acceptance): Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement2. Every Contract is an agreement, but every agreement is not a Contract. An agreement becomes a contract when the following conditions are satisfied. (B) Enforceability at Law Section10 of Indian contract Act defines the essential elements of contracts: “All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of the parties, competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not expressly declared to be void.” Elements: 1. Agreement (section2(e)) 2. intention to create legal obligations3 3. Consideration;[Sec2(d) & Sec.25] 2 3

Section 2(e) of Indian contract Act, 1872 Balfour vs. Balfour

11

4. Parties Competent to Contract;[Sec.11 & 12] 5. Free Consent;[Sec.13-22] 6. Lawful Object.[Sec.23-30] 7. Agreement not declared void;[Sec.24-30] 8. Certainty and possibility of performance;[Sec.29 & Sec.56] 9. Legal Formalities 3) QUASI CONTRACT FEATURES: (A) A quasi-contract is not a real contract (B) It is not based on expenses or implied intentions of the parties (C) It is not based upon the offer and acceptance rule (D) It lacks one of the essentials of a valid contract i.e. consent of the parties. (E) It does not arise from any formal agreement but is imposed by law (F) The right under it is available against specific person(s) and not against the world. (G) A suit for its breach may be filed in the same way as in case of a general contract. NOTE: In English law, quasi contracts are also known as constructive contracts/ Example: Charan pays some money to Sai by mistake. It is actually due to Ram. Sai must refund the money to Shiva. A quasi contract belongs to an entirely different legal category, having nothing to do with genuine contracts, express or implied. These are a heterogeneous collection of cases having little in common that the fact one person is entitled to recover money or property from the other in order that a just should be reached. Such right does not depend upon the agreement or promise.

12

A contract implied in law or a quasi contract is not a real contract or as it is called, a consensual contract. A quasi contractual cause of action involves an alleged promise to pay, which is purely fictitious. The promise is imposed the implications of law, apart and without regard to the probable intention of the parties, and sometimes even against the clear expression of dissent. Constructive contracts are not true contracts at all, the essential elements of consent is absent. The expression of quasi contract is truly a misnomer; for it has little or no affinity with contract. Quasi contract give rise a situation where an obligation or duty is cast upon the parties by law, but not by the terms of the contract to which they have given assent.4 The basis of quasi-contract liability is unjust enrichment and the liability arises by implication of law, and not out of any agreement as in the case of contract. Hence apparently the term quasi contract is rather misleading and is apt confusion. Anson has written that the term “Quasi – contract” is not a happy term 5. Sir Fredrick has preferred the term constructive contract6 .Pollock and Mulla have also remarked “it is probably because is a misnomer. It will not like a formal contract. Distinctive features of quasi contracts. Anson has pointed out the following three distinctive features of quasi contract.

A. Right to sum of money. Such a right is always a right to money, and generally, though not always to a liquidated sum of money7. B. Imposed by the law and does not arise by agreement of Parties. 4

Mulamchand v. state of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 214, AIR 1968 SC 1218 at 1222 per shah J. Anson law of contract, 23rd Edition, page 205 6 Principles of contract 3rd edition,p.589 7 Anson law of contract , 23rd edition, p589 5

13

It doesn’t arise from any agreement of the parties concerned, but is imposed by the law, so that in this respect a quasi-contract resembles a tort. C. Rights available only against a particular person or persons. It is a right which is available not, like the rights protected by the law of torts, against the entire world, but against the particular person, persons only, so that in this respect, it resembles a contractual rights. The following sections of the Indian contract Act, 1872 discuss the quasi contract. SECTION 68: if a person incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by the another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such in capable person. Illustrations- the following are appended to the section: (1) A supplies B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to his condition in life; A is

entitled to be reimbursed from B’s property. (2) A supplies the wife and children of B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to their conditions in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from B’s property. Essential elements of the section (1) If a person supplies necessaries to person who is incapable of contracting or to anyone whom is legally bound to support. (2) The necessaries must suit to his condition to life. (3) The person supplying the necessaries is entitled to be reimbursed; but (4) The liability of such person incapable of contracting is limited to his property or in other words he incurs no personal liability for the obvious reason that he is incompetent to contract. The word Necessaries has been used here in a technical sense. It includes not only the bare necessities of existence such as clothes, and food, but all things that may

14

be reasonably necessary suited to minor’s condition in life e.g. A watch or bicycle. But the articles of luxury are by no means necessaries. Expenses of minor education, his sister’s marriage, and expenses incurred in funeral of minor’ parents, expenses incurred for the necessaries litigation, etc. have generally held as necessaries. Expenses of minor marriage have also held to be necessaries.8 SECTION 69: A person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay, and therefore pays it is entitled to be reimbursed by the other. For example, B holds land in Bengal, on a lease granted by A, the Zamindar. The revenue payable by A to the government being in arrear, his land is advertised for sale by Government. Under the revenue law, the consequences of such sale will be the annulment of B’s lease. B, to prevent the sale and the consequent of his own lease, pays the Government the sum due from A. A is bound to make good to B the amount such paid. SECTION 70: where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore of, the thing so done or delivered. Essential Elements: (1) A person does lawfully anything for another person or delivers anything to him (2) He does not intend to do so gratuitously. (3) Such other person enjoys the benefit thereof; and (4) Such person is bound to compensate the former. Illustrations:

8

Mukundi vs. sarabsukh, ILR(1884) 6 All.417

15

A) A, a tradesman, leaves goods at B’s house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. He is bound to pay A for them. B) A saves B’s property from fire. A is not entitled to compensation from B; if, the circumstances show that he intended to act gratuitously. The provisions of Section 70 of the act will be attracted only in a situation where a person derives some extra benefit over and above what was in the contemplation of the parties and for which no stipulation had been made and it is at the cost of the other person. State of Karnataka vs. Stellar Constructions: Where a road contractor claimed an extra amount for the reason that he had to spend more on the haulage of material than expected but he had been told at the time of contracting to take care of all possibilities. The court said that any disadvantage suffered by the contractor during the execution of the work could not be made a ground of making an additional claim over and above the contract rates. In order to attract the section 70 of the Contract Act, three conditions are required to establish a right of action at the suit of a person who does anything for another: (1) the thing must be done lawfully (2) it must be done by a person not intending to act gratuitously and (3) The person for whom the act is done must enjoy the benefit of it.

Illustrations of section 70: (A) A, a tradesman, leaves the goods at B’s house by mistake. B treats the goods at his own. He bound to pay A for them. (B) A saves B’s property from fire. A is not entitled to compensation from B, if the circumstances show that he intended to act gratuitously. Damodara Mudailar vs. Secretary of State for India9: Facts: a number of villages were irrigation waters from a tank. Some of the villages were under direct state tenancy, others under Zamindhars. The 9

ILR (1895) 18 Mad 88

16

Government carried out repairs to the tank for its preservatives. The zamindaras also enjoyed the benefits of the repairs. Judgment: they were accordingly held liable to make proportional contribution towards the expenses of repair. There is no intended to act as gratuitously so they were bound to pay the amount. Ram Pravesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar10: A high way work was allotted on emergency basis. The cost of work was sanctioned by the superintending engineer. But no allocation of funds was made. The work was completed. It was held that the state could not leave the contractor high and dry. The statement compensates him. The work was not supposed to have been done on gratuitous basis. The amount as sanctioned and recommended must be paid. Such a claimant should not be compelled to go into litigation. Technicalities should not come in the way of substantive work. The Supreme Court has further held that where a contractor whose work has been accepted by the other party claims compensation under an oral agreement, which he is not able to prove, he would still be entitled for compensation under section 7011. Under common law: Two principles seem to govern this kind of quasi-contractual liability. One of them is that the payment should have been made under pressure and not voluntarily and the other is that the defendant should have been bound to pay and has been relieved of his liability by the payments made by the plaintiff. An expenditure or payment made purely voluntarily will not do. If, for example, a person pays premiums due upon the policy of another without his request and without any compulsion, he cannot recover 12. Similarly, where a municipal corporation, having no legal liability to do so, carried out repairs of a canal bridge, which it was the obligation of the canal authority to maintain, the corporation could not recover, although the bridge was, for want of repair, endangering the 10

AIR 2007 Pat 26; V.R. Subramanyam v B. Thayappa, AIR 1966 SC 1034: (1961) 3 SCR 663 12 Fackle vs. Scottish imperial insurance Co, (1886) 34Ch D 234(CA) 11

17

road and although the corporation had without success requested the defendant to carry out the repairs. They were still volunteers 13. There was no legal compulsion on them to carry out the repairs. The only compulsion was the damage being done to the road and the expenditure made by them in protecting the road may give remedy under some other principles but not defiantly under quasi-contract. Exall vs. Partridge14: Here the plaintiff had left his carriage upon the premises in which the defendant was living as a tenant. The landlord lawfully seized all the goods on the premises including the carriage for non-payment of rent and would have sold them in execution of his claim. The plaintiff paid the outstanding rent to back his carriage and then sued for the defendant for the amount. He was entitled to it. 4) BAILMENT, BAILEE AND BAILOR Bailment consists in delivery of goods i.e., movable property, by one person, who is generally the owner thereof, to another person for some purpose. SECTION 148: 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 persons delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the bailor. The person to whom they are delivered is called the bailee. Essential elements of Bailment: i.

Delivery of goods for some purpose.

ii.

Return of the goods after the purpose is achieved, or their disposal according to the bailor’s directions.

Delivery of goods for some purpose: SECTION 149:

13 14

Macclesfied corporation vs. Great central Rly Co, (1911) 2 KB 528 (CA) (1799) 8Term Rep 308: (1775-1802) All ER Rep 341 (KB)

18

If a person assumes the custody of another person’s goods, even without any formal agreement, this is difficult to constitute bailment.15 Return of the goods after the purpose is achieved, or their disposal according to the bailor’s directions. Since Section 71 provides that the responsibility of a finder of last goods is same as of a bailee, it will be necessary to see the duties of baillee. Ultzen vs. Nicols16 Facts: an old customer went into a restaurant for the purpose of dinning there. When he entered the room a waiter took his coat, without being asked, and hung it on a hook behind him. When the customer rose to leave the coat was gone. When the waiter did might be no more than an act of voluntarily courtesy towards the customer. Issues: Is there any bailee duty arises on part of waiter? He is held responsible as bailor? Judgment: the restaurant –keeper was held liable. The waiter by taking the coat into his possession had relieved the plaintiff of its care and had thus assumed the responsibility of a bailee. It was he who selected the place where the coat should put. Waiter was held liable. Kaliaporumal Pillai vs. Visalakshmi17 Facts: a lady handed over to a goldsmith certain jewels for the purpose of being melted and utilized for making new jewels. Every evening as soon as the goldsmith’s works for the day was over, the lady used to receive half made jewels from the goldsmith and put them into box in the goldsmith’s room and keep the key in her possession. The jewels were lost one right. But the lady’s action against the goldsmith failed. Issues: 15

Trustees, port trust of the Bombay V. premier Automobiles, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1982 (1894) 1Q.B. 92 17 A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 32 16

19

The goldsmith is considers as bailee as not? Judgment: The gold smith was not liable, the court saying “Any bailment that could be gathered from the facts must be taken to have come to an end as soon as the plaintiff was put in possession of the melted gold. Delivery is necessary to constitute bailment. The mere leaving of box in the defendant’s house, when the plaintiff herself took away the key cannot certainly mean of the provision in section 149 so the defendant was not held liable. Delivery means transfer of possession of the goods from one person to another. Delivery need not be actual. It may sometimes be a constructive or symbolic delivery. The delivery of goods, in a bailment, only for some purpose, e.g., for safe custody, for carriage, or repair, etc. when the purpose is accomplished, the goods are to be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivery them. Kalyani breweries vs. State of West Bengal18 Bailment of goods is always made for some purpose and is subjected to the condition that when the purpose is accomplished the goods will be returned to the bailor or disposed of according to his mandate. If the person to whom the goods are delivered is not bound to restore them to the person delivering them or deal with them his directions, their relationship will not be that of bailor and bailee. A bailment is also distinguished from sale, exchange and barter. In these transactions what is transferred is not mere possession, but also ownership and, therefore, the person buying is under no obligation to return. The facts of the case are, in a sale of beer bottles, one of the terms was that the price of the bottles would be refunded on the buyer returning the bottles. The transaction was held to be a sale of the bottles and not bailment. DUTIES OF BAILEE

18

A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 70.

20

A bailee has to observe the following duties. I. Duty to take care of goods bailed. (Section 151) II. Duty not to make unauthorized use of the goods. (Section154) III. Duty not to mix bailor’s goods with his own goods. (Section 155 &156 ) IV. Duty to return the goods on fulfillment of the purpose V. Duty to deliver to the bailor increase or profit on the goods bailed. Union of India vs. Udho Ram & Sons19 Facts: where a part of the food grains stored at a Bailee’s were damaged by floods unprecedented in the history of place. So Bailor claimed for damages. Judgment: According Section 152 of the Indian contract Act he was not liable. Section 152: Bailee when not liable for loss, etc, of thing bailed. – The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed. If he has taken the amount of care of it described in section 151. nature, quantity and bulk of the goods bailed, the purpose of bailment, facilities reasonably available for safe custody and the like, will be taken into account for determining whether proper care has taken or not. RIGHTS OF BAILEE: I.

Right to recover necessary expenses incurred on bailment. (Section 158)

II. Right to recover compensation from the bailor. (Section 170 ) III. Right to have a lien on the goods bailed. IV. Right to suit against a wrongdoer.

Sections 148-171 of the Indian contract Act deals with the bailment and how it is made, duties and responsibilities of bailee, bailee duties towards bailor. 5) FINDER OF LAST GOODS AND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES

19

A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 422

21

A person, who finds the goods belonging to another and takes them in his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a baillee. Once the finder of last goods belonging to another takes the goods into his custody, he is treated under the law as a bailee and section 71 of the act imposes upon him the same responsibility as of a baillee. It would, however, be wrong to say that the finder of goods does not get any right in respect of the goods which he takes into his custody. A finder of goods has no right sue owner for compensation for the trouble 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 performance or reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receive it.20 Under certain circumstances, the finder may also sell the goods found. When a thing which is commonly the subject of sale is lost, if the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found, or if he refuses upon demand, to pay the lawful charges of the finder, the finder may sell it under the following situations. a) When the thing is in danger of perishing or losing the greater part of its value, or b) When the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found, amount two- thirds of its value. The rights conferred by these provisions. I. Right of lien (Section 168) II. Right of claiming the reward, if announced by the owner (Section 168) III. Right to sell the goods found (Section 169) I. Right of lien (Section 168) According to the Section 168, a finder of goods has no right to sue the owner for trouble and expenses voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find the owner. He has, however, the right of particular lien in respect of those goods. He may

20

Section 168 of Indian contract Act, 1872

22

retain the goods against the owner until he receives compensation for the trouble and expenses voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find the owner. II. Right of claiming the reward, if announced by the owner (Section 168) It has been noted above that the finder has right to retain the goods until he is paid the compensation for the trouble and expenses voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and find the owner. In addition to that III. Right to sell the goods found (Section 169) When a thing which is commonly the subject of sale is los, if the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found, or if he refuses, upon demand, to pay the lawful charges of the finder, the finder many sell it. A. When the thing is in danger of perishing or losing the greater part of its value, or B. When the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found, amount to two thirds of its value. 6) CASE LAWS RELATING TO FINER OF LAST GOODS Isaack vs. Clark 21 A finder of goods is a bailee thereof as much bound by the duty of reasonable care. He has under no higher duty that of. In that case, the court said finders of last goods were bailee’s. They have been taken proper and reasonable care of goods. The bailee’s duty is to delivery the goods safely. Binstead vs. Buck22 Facts: A finder fed a dog for 20 weeks and claimed for damages 2os. Judgment: the owner of the dog was not at all entitled to pay because the finder of lost goods does not have the right to sue the owner for compensation for trouble and expenses voluntarily incurred by him to preserve goods and to find out the owner23.

21

(1615) 2 Bulstr 306 (1776) 2Wm B1 117: 96 ER 660 23 Section 168 of Indian contract Act 22

23

Nicholson vs. Chapman24 Facts: a quantity of timber, placed in a dock on the bank of a navigable river, being accidently loosened, was carried by the tide to a considerable distance. The defendant, finding, it in that situation, voluntarily conveyed it to place of safety. In that case, if he refused to delivery the goods unless money paid, he will be guilty of trover. He was held not entitled to lien on the timber for the trouble or expense, but was liable in trover for refusing to deliver. Trover: Trover is a form of lawsuit in common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself. Early trover cases involved the keeping or taking of a bailment by the bailee. Trover actions frequently concerned the finding of lost property. It could also involve cargo on ships, such as those lost at sea and later found. Trover often involved cases in which the "most correct" owner could be determined. For instance, if an envelope of bank notes or currency were to be found, the court would attempt to identify the true owner. Often this would prove to be impossible. In that case, the finder would be the next best owner and be considered the possessor. Trover cases have been described as "finder’s keepers, losers weepers" Union of India vs. Amar singh25 Facts: a railway authority which took his its custody wagons containing the plaintiff’s goods and which was left across the border in Pakistan became the contractual within the meaning of section 70. Thus in respect of duties and liabilities a finder is treated at a par with the bailee. Illustrations: i.

“A” finds a “B” bag in one street. A taken into his custody of it. Later on he checked the bag, it contain the fruits and vegetables. Later he tried to find the owner, he find all possible ways. The vegetables and fruits whatever in the bag which are imported from the abroad, so costly. Thereafter two days they

24 25

(1793) 2 Hy B1 254: (1775-1802) All ER Rep 67. AIR 1960 SC 233: (1960) 2 SCR 75

24

consumed all stuff. Later owner find, they were entitled to pay one third of amount. ii.

Raju finds raghu watch, which was very costly. He had taken the reasonable care to preserve it. One day the entire property of Raju was stolen by the Thefts, along with Raju property, raghu watch was stolen. In that case, he was not entitled to compensate the Raghu.

iii.

Sharan finds a Charan missing daughter. Charan announced the prize money for who will be the find his daughter. Sharan finds his daughter without any acknowledgment of notice or announcement. Later on he claimed for damages incurred. The owner (daughter father) was not entitled to pay.

iv.

Sai finds Vijay purse, in that ATM cards, money, passports, some important receipts were there. Sai finds the true owner (Vijay), later he delivery it, but passport was not there. Sai duty is to delivery the goods as Bailee.

7) CONCLUSION The finder of last goods is a person who finds the goods of another but not knowing the true owner at that time. He is bound by the law to take appropriate care of goods until the true owner is found. In literal sense, his position is a mere a custodian of the goods. Finder of last goods is a part of quasi contract or certain relation created by a contract. The finder of last goods has the same duties like bailee. This mentioned in the Indian contract Act 1872, under 71. And Sections 168, 169 of Indian contract act deals with the finder of last goods duties. Finder of last good duty resembles bailee. The contractual obligation like Quasi-contractual obligation. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) Rk bangia – law of contracts volume 1 and volume 2 2) Avatar singh – law of contracts 3) The Indian contract act 1872 and specific relief acts – Nilima Bhadhade 4) The Indian contract act – kesava rao 5) The Indian contract act 1872 bare act. 6) Justice P.S. Narayana – law of contracts 7) S.C. Mitra - law of contracts

25

26