Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bailment Question

Options
  • 18-11-2018 9:32pm
    #1
    Good_riddance
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭


    Hi Guys,

    This is my first time posting here so excuse me if there's any errors etc. I'm studying for the FE1's, and I'm having quite the problem with Bailment and third parties. I've put a scenario below which shows my confusion.

    Suppose there are three people; A, B and C. A gets possession of C's computer in an unlawful way, and is guilty of trespass. A, as bailor, gives the computer to B who is now the bailee. A tells B that he cannot give the computer to anyone else but A. A's title to the computer is better than everyone else's title, except for C, who's title is older and is genuine. A later asks B to return the computer to him. However, B refuses to give the computer back to A, claiming he is certain that A stole it from C. If A sued B in detinue, B could not assert the right of jus tertii (i.e. C), and B is estopped from denying A's title.

    My problem arises with who C must sue to get the computer back:

    If C seeks the return of his computer, can he sue B in detinue? B as bailee is denied from estopping the bailor's (A) right to title, however as A is not present in the litigation, B cannot assert A's right to title as this would be a jus tertii assertion. I know that the courts will only dispose of the issue that is immediately before it.

    Does this mean C would thus be successful in recovering his property by suing B? Or does C have to sue A who subsequently must sue B to get the computer back?

    Sorry for the long winded question, but I have been looking at this for hours and I cannot figure it out - I think I've looked at it for too long. I cannot find enough depth in any textbook or case to help me answer it besides from the rules about denying title and jus tertii assertions.

    I'd really appreciate your help guys, and if you could cite any cases that would be unreal!!
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,392 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Good_riddance wrote: »
    A tells B that he cannot give the phone to anyone else but A.
    Phone or computer?
    Good_riddance wrote: »
    Does this mean C would thus be successful in recovering his property by suing B? Or does C have to sue A who subsequently must sue B to get the computer back?
    Could both A and B be joined in the case?


  • Options
    #3
    Good_riddance
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Good_riddance


    Victor wrote: »
    Phone or computer?

    It's all meant to be a computer, sorry! and A and B are not joined. Their relationship is merely a bailment contract etc


  • Options
    #4
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,392 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Good_riddance wrote: »
    It's all meant to be a computer, sorry!

    You can click the "EDIT" button on the original post to change it. :)


Advertisement