BAILMENT AND PLEDGE

CA.ADITHYA KIRAN
FCA, CFA (USA), CCO(IIBF),
DHLA, CFM, MA (Econ)
Top 10% of the Performers in Global Rankings

T/F-1: Servant of a master who is in custody of goods of the master does
not become a bailee.
True: Servant, of a master, who is in custody of goods of the master does
not become a bailee because he has only custody but not possession.
T/F-2: Depositing ornaments in a bank locker is not bailment.
True: Because are in possession of the owner though kept in a locker at the
bank as the keys are with the owner.
T/F-3: Deposit of money in a bank is not bailment.
True: Since the money returned by the bank would not be identical
currency notes.

True / False
T/F-4: No consideration is necessary to create a valid contract of bailment.
True: Bailment may be of two types viz., Gratuitous Bailment and Non-
Gratuitous Bailment. In case of Gratuitous Bailment, either Bailor or Bailee
will be benefited but not both. In other words, in case of Gratuitous
Bailment there is no consideration.
T/F-5: There can never be a bailment for immoveable property or money.
True: Bailment is only for goods.
Goods are moveable property. Therefore, there can never be a Bailment
with respect to immoveable property.
Goods does not include money and actionable claims. Therefore, there can
never be a bailment for money.

True / False
T/F-6: In case of bailment, exchange of goods are not allowed.
True: After completion of bailment, bailee shall return same goods either
in original form or in altered form. Bailee cannot deliver some other goods,
even of higher value. Therefore, exchange of goods is not treated as
bailment.
T/F-5: There can never be a bailment for immoveable property or money.
True: Bailment is only for goods.
Goods are moveable property. Therefore, there can never be a Bailment
with respect to immoveable property.
Goods does not include money and actionable claims. Therefore, there can
never be a bailment for money.

MCQ
MCQ-1: In Bailment which of the following changes.
a) Possession.
b) Ownership.
c) Custody.
d) All of the above.
MCQ-2: Which of the following is true for Non-Gratuitous Bailment.
a) Bailee gets benefit.
b) Bailor gets benefit.
c) Either Bailor or Bailee gets benefit.
d) Both the Bailor and Bailee gets benefit.

V parks his car at a parking lot, locks it, and keeps the keys with himself.
Determine whether this is a contract of Bailment
PROVISION:
 As per Sec.148, Bailment requires delivery of goods by bailor to bailee.
 Delivery of goods involve change in possession of goods.
 Mere custody of goods does not mean possession.
ANALYSIS
 In the given case, though the car is kept in the custody of parking lot, the
keys is with V. Therefore parking lot has only custody of goods not
possession.
CONCLUSION:
The given transaction is not a bailment as the delivery of goods is not
involved.

Mrs. A delivered her old silver jewellery to Mr. Y a Goldsmith, for the purpose of
making new a silver bowl out of it. Every evening she used to receive the unfinished
good (silver bowl) to put it into box kept at Mr. Y’s Shop. She kept the key of that box
with herself. One night, the silver bowl was stolen from that box. Was there a contract
of bailment? Whether the possession of the goods (actual or constructive) delivered,
constitute contract of bailment or not?
PROVISION:
Delivery may be actual delivery or constructive delivery.
 As per Sec.149 delivery can be made by doing anything which has the effect of putting
the goods in the possession of intended bailee.
ANALYSIS
 In the given case, though the jewellery is kept in the custody of Y, the keys of the box is
with Mrs A. Therefore Y has only custody of goods not possession.
CONCLUSION:
The given transaction is not a bailment. Possession of goods is not delivery either actually
or constructively.

Determine whether seizure of goods by customs authorities is a contract of
Bailment
PROVISION:
 Delivery of goods involve change in possession of goods.
 Mere custody of goods does not mean possession.
ANALYSIS
 When the goods are seized by customs authorities, they are completely
under the control of them. Therefor, possession of goods is with customs
authorities.
CONCLUSION:
The given transaction is a bailment as the delivery of goods is involved due
to transfer of possession--.

A hires a carriage of B. The carriage is unsafe, though B is not aware of it, and A is
injured. Determine whether B is responsible to A for the injury. (May-2005 (4M))
PROVISION:
As per Sec.150, the bailor shall disclose to the bailee, if there is any fault in the
goods bailed, if the bailor is aware of such faults.
 If the bailor does not make such disclosure, the bailor is responsible for any
damage occurred to the bailee due to such faults.
 However, if the goods are bailed for hire, then bailor is responsible whether or
not he was aware of such faults.
ANALYSIS
 In the given case, the carriage is bailed for hire, it is unsafe and bailor is unaware
of it.
 It is the bailor’s duty to supply a carriage fit for the purpose for which it is hired.
CONCLUSION:
Bailor ‘B’ is responsible for the injury to Bailee ‘A’

A hired a taxi from B for the purpose of going to Gurgaon from Noida. A
incurred expenses of petrol, toll tax etc. During the journey, a major defect
occurred in the engine. A got the engine rectified through a nearby mechanic.
Determine who has to borne which expenses.
PROVISION:
In case of Non-Gratuitous Bailment (NGB), the bailor is liable to pay the
extra-ordinary expenses incurred by the Bailee
ANALYSIS
 In the given case, the bailment is NGB because taxi is given on hire.
Petrol and toll expenses are ordinary expenses.
Expenses to repair the engine are extra-ordinary expenses.
CONCLUSION:
 Petrol and Toll Tax shall be borne by bailee ‘A’.
 Engine repair expenses shall be borne by bailor ‘B”

X bails his ornaments to ‘Y’. ‘Y’ keeps these ornaments in his own locker at his
house along with his own ornaments. All the ornaments are lost/stolen in a riot.
Determine whether ‘Y’ is responsible for the loss to ‘X’. What would be your answer,
if ‘X’ had specifically instructed ‘Y’ to keep them in a bank, but ‘Y’ keeps them at his
residence
PROVISION:
As per Sec.151, Bailee is bound to take as much care of goods bailed as a man of
ordinary prudence would take care of his own goods.
As per Sec.152, if there is no special condition between bailor and bailee, then the
bailee is not responsible for loss or damage of goods, if the bailee has taken the
care as specified u/s 151.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case Y kept the ornaments of X along with his own ornaments.
Thereby ‘Y’ exhibited care of ordinary prudence.
CONCLUSION:
Y is not liable to X for loss of ornaments.
However, if X has specifically instructed ‘Y’ to keep ornaments in a bank, then the
indemnity/protection given u/s 152 does not apply and Y is responsible to X for loss
of ornaments.

A deposited his goods in B’s warehouse. On account of unprecedented floods,
a part of the goods were damaged. Determine whether B is liable for the loss
PROVISION:
As per Sec.151, Bailee is bound to take as much care of goods bailed as a
man of ordinary prudence would take care of his own goods.
As per Sec.152, if there is no special condition between bailor and bailee,
then the bailee is not responsible for loss or damage of goods, if the bailee
has taken the care as specified u/s 151.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case goods were damaged due to floods and as it is given
unprecedented, we assume that ‘B’ has taken the care specified u/s 151
CONCLUSION:
‘B’ is not liable to A for damage of goods.

A lends to B, a horse for his own riding. B gives the horse to C for riding. Determine
the remedy available to A. What would be your answer, if C rides the horse with due
care but the horse accidentally falls and injured
PROVISION:
As per Sec.153, a contract of bailment is voidable at the option of the bailor, if the
bailee does not use the goods according to the terms and conditions of bailment.
As per Sec.154, if the bailee uses the goods not according to the terms and
conditions of the bailment, he is liable to compensate the bailor for any loss or
destruction of goods.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case A lends a horse to B for his own riding but B gives horse to C.
Therefore use of horse is not according to the terms of bailment
CONCLUSION:
 Contract is voidable at the option of ‘A’. ‘B’ is liable to compensate the loss
occurred to ‘A’ due to injury of horse.

A bails 100 bales of cotton marked with a particular mark to B. B, without A’s
consent, mixes the 100 bales with other bales of his own, bearing a different mark.
Explain the position of parties in this regard.
PROVISION:
As per Sec.156, If the bailee, without the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods
bailed with his own goods and the goods can be separated then:
a) The property in goods remains in the parties respectively;
b) The bailee is bound to bear the:
1) Expense of separation and
2) Any damage arising from the mixture .
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case ‘B’ mixes ‘A’ goods with his own goods without consent of ‘A’. In
general, bales are separable
CONCLUSION:
 A is entitled to have his 100 bales returned.
 B is bound to bear all the expenses incurred in the separation of the bales, and
any other incidental damage.

A bails a barrel of Cape flour worth ₹ 4500 to B. B, without A’s consent, mixes
the flour with country flour of his own, worth only ₹ 2500 a barrel.
PROVISION:
As per Sec.157, If the bailee, without the consent of the bailor, mixes the
goods bailed with his own goods and the goods cannot be separated then the
bailee shall compensate the bailor for the loss of goods.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case ‘B’ mixes ‘A’s cape flour with country flour of his own and
without consent of ‘A’. In general, when mixed flour is not separable
CONCLUSION:
 ‘B’ shall compensate A for the
loss incurred of ₹ 4,500.

Amar bailed 50 kg of high quality sugar to Srijith, promising to give ₹ 200 at the time
of taking back the bailed goods. Srijith's employee, unaware of this, mixed the 50 kg
of sugar belonging to Amar with the sugar in the shop and packaged it for sale when
Srijith was away. This came to light only when Amar came asking for the sugar he had
bailed with Srijith, as the price of the specific quality of sugar had trebled. What is
the remedy available to Amar? (Nov-18: 3M)
PROVISION:
As per Sec.157, If the bailee, without the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods
bailed with his own goods and the goods cannot be separated then the bailee shall
compensate the bailor for the loss of goods.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case Srijith’s employee mixed high quality sugar bailed by Amar for
which Srijith is held responsible. Further, the two types of sugar mixed cannot be
separated
CONCLUSION:
 Srijith must compensate Amar for loss of goods.

A lent his car to B gratuitously for one month. But A returned to station after one
week. Whether A can demand the car even before expiry of specified bailment time
of 1 month?
PROVISION:
As per Sec.159, when the goods are lent gratuitously, the bailor can demand back
the goods at any time even before the expiry of the time fixed or the achievement
of the object.
However, due to the premature return of the goods, if the bailee suffers any
loss, which is more than the benefit actually obtained by him from the use
of the goods bailed, the bailor has to compensate the bailee.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case the car is lent by ‘A’ to ‘B’ gratuitously.
CONCLUSION:
‘A’ can demand back the car even before the expiry of specified 1 month. But ‘A’
shall compensate ‘B’ any loss occurred to him, if such loss is more than the benefit
derived by him.

A, a dealer in T.V. delivered a T.V. to B for using in summer vacation. Subsequently, C
claimed that the T.V. belonged to him as it was delivered only for repairs, to A and
thus, B should deliver it to him? Determine the validity of C’s claim.
PROVISION:
As per Sec.167, If a person, other than the bailor, claims goods bailed he may apply
to the Court to stop the delivery of the goods to the bailor, and to decide the title
to the goods.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, ‘A’ is the bailor as he delivered TV to B. But ‘C’ is claiming it for
B.
CONCLUSION:
 ‘C’ being the third person, may apply to the court to stop re-delivering of TV to A
and to decide the title.
Note: In the ICAI SM it has been given that ‘B’ the bailee has to apply to the court.
But as per Sec.167 of the Bare Act, the third party may apply to the court.

X delivered books to Y to be bound. Y promised to return the books within a reasonable time. X
pressed for the return of the book. But Y, failed to deliver them back even after the expiry of
reasonable time. Subsequently the books were burnt in an accidental fire at the premises of Y. X
claimed damages from Y. Y contend that he took reasonable care and books destroyed beyond his
control and denies X’s Claim. Determine the validity of Y’s contention
PROVISION:
As per Sec.160, it is the duty of bailee to return, or deliver according to the bailor’s directions, the
goods bailed without demand, as soon as the time for which they were bailed, has expired, or the
purpose for which they were bailed has been accomplished.
As per Sec.161, If, by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered
at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods from that time.
 Sec.152 protects the bailee if he has taken the care specified in Sec.151.
Sec.151 provides that bailee has to take as much care of the goods bailed as a man of ordinary
prudence would take under similar circumstances.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, Y (Bailee) failed to deliver the books even after expiry of reasonable time.
Therefore, Sec.161 applies. The protection given u/s 152 applies only during the bailment not after
bailment completion.
CONCLUSION:
 Contention of Y is not valid. Y is liable to pay damages to X for loss of books.

Sunil delivered his car to Mahesh for repairs. Mahesh Completed the work, but did not return the
car to Sunil within reasonable time, though Sunil repeatedly reminded Mahesh for the return of car.
In the meantime a big fire occurred in the neighborhood and the car was destroyed. Decide whether
Mahesh can be held liable under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (Nov – 03, (6M))
PROVISION:
As per Sec.160, it is the duty of bailee to return, or deliver according to the bailor’s directions, the
goods bailed without demand, as soon as the time for which they were bailed, has expired, or the
purpose for which they were bailed has been accomplished.
As per Sec.161, If, by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered
at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods from that time.
Sec.151 provides that bailee has to take as much care of the goods bailed as a man of ordinary
prudence would take under similar circumstances.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, Mahesh (Bailee) failed to deliver the car within reasonable time after
completion of work. Therefore, Sec.161 applies. The protection given u/s 152 applies only during
the bailment not after bailment completion.
CONCLUSION:
 Mahesh is liable for the loss, although he was not negligent, but because of his failure to deliver
the car within a reasonable time .

R gives his umbrella to M during raining season to be used for two days during
Examinations. M keeps the umbrella for a week. While going to R’s house to return the
umbrella, M accidently slips and the umbrella is badly damaged. Who bear the loss and
why?
PROVISION:
As per Sec.160, it is the duty of bailee to return, or deliver according to the bailor’s
directions, the goods bailed without demand, as soon as the time for which they were
bailed, has expired, or the purpose for which they were bailed has been accomplished.
As per Sec.161, If, by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or
tendered at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods from that time.
Sec.151 provides that bailee has to take as much care of the goods bailed as a man of
ordinary prudence would take under similar circumstances.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, M (Bailee) failed to deliver the umbrella even after expiry of specified
bailment time period of 2 days. Therefore, Sec.161 applies. The protection given u/s 152
applies only during the bailment not after bailment completion.
CONCLUSION:
 M shall bear the loss since he failed to return within the stipulated time.

X delivered his car to S for five days for safe keeping. In spite of repeated reminders
of S, X does not came to receive the car. Finally X took the car after one month. S
claims reimbursement of expenses for safe keeping of car from X. Determine
whether S’s claim is valid
PROVISION:
It is the duty of the bailor to receive back the goods when the bailee returns them
after the time of bailment has expired or the purpose of bailment has been
accomplished.
If the bailor refuses to take delivery of goods when it is offered at the proper time
the bailee can claim compensation for all necessary expenses incurred for the safe
custody.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, X does not receive the car even after specified bailment time of
5 days.
CONCLUSION:
 S can claim the necessary expenses incurred by him for the custody of the car.

A gives cloth to B, a tailor, to make into a coat. B promises A to deliver the coat as
soon as it is finished, and to give a three months’ credit for the price. B completed
the Coat but refuses to deliver and wants to retain until A pays the cost. Determine
whether B can retain until he is paid.
PROVISION:
As per Sec.170, where the bailee has, in accordance with the purpose of the
bailment, rendered any service involving the exercise of labor or skill in respect of
the goods bailed, he has, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a right to
retain such goods until he receives due remuneration for the services he has
rendered in respect of them.
 Where the bailee delivers the goods without receiving his remuneration, he has a
right to sue the bailor. In such a case the particular lien may be waived.
ANALYSIS:
 From the reading of the above provision, it appears that the right to retain is
available to Bailee only if there is no contract to the contrary. But in the given case,
B agreed to give 3 months credit period.
CONCLUSION:
 B cannot retain the cloth. He has to return. However ‘B’ may sue ‘A’, if A fails to
pay after 3 months.

‘A’ borrows ₹ 500/- from the bank with security and subsequently again
borrows another ₹ 1000/- but without security of certain jewellery. ‘A’ has
repaid ₹ 500/- along with applicable interest. But the banker wants to retain
the jewellery towards the second loan which is yet to be repaid. Determine the
validity of Banker’s proposal.
PROVISION:
As per Sec.174, in the absence of anything to the contrary, there is a
presumption that pawnee can retain the pledged goods against subsequent
debts.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, thought the first loan of ₹ 500 is repaid the second loan of
₹ 1,000 is outstanding.
CONCLUSION:
 Banker can retain the jewellery till the second loan of ₹ 1,00 is paid along
with interest as he has right to retain goods against subsequent debts.

‘A’ borrows ₹ 500/- from the bank without security and subsequently again
borrows another ₹ 1000/- but with security of certain jewellery. ‘A’ has repaid
₹ 1000/- along with applicable interest. But the banker wants to retain the
jewellery towards the first loan which is yet to be repaid. Determine the
validity of Banker’s proposal.
PROVISION:
As per Sec.171, among others, bankers in the absence of a contract to the
contrary, retain, as a security for a general balance of account any goods
bailed to them.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, thought the second loan of ₹ 1,000 is repaid the first loan
of ₹ 500 is outstanding.
CONCLUSION:
 Banker can retain the jewellery till the first loan of ₹ 500 is paid along with
interest .

Radheshyam borrowed a sum of ₹ 50,000 from a Bank on the security of gold on
1.07.2019 under an agreement which contains a clause that the bank shall have a right
of particular lien on the gold pledged with it. Radheshyam thereafter took an unsecured
loan of ₹ 20,000 from the same bank on 1.08.2019 for three months. On 30.09.2019 he
repaid entire secured loan of ₹ 50,000 and requested the bank to release the gold
pledged with it. The Bank decided to continue the lien on the gold until the unsecured
loan is fully repaid by Radheshyam. Decide whether the decision of the Bank is valid
within the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?
PROVISION:
As per Sec.171, among others, bankers in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain,
as a security for a general balance of account any goods bailed to them.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, banker has only particular lien under the agreement. Further, Mr.
Radheshyam paid the loan of ₹ 50,000 with respect to which gold is pledged
CONCLUSION:
 Decision of the bank (to continue the lien till the unsecured loan is fully repaid) is invalid.

Mr. X finds a defective mobile phone lying on the road. He picks it up, gets it
repaired for Rs. 2000. He later pledges the mobile phone for Rs. 5000.
Determine whether the pledge is valid. If so to what extent. Whether the true
owner can claim from the pledgee. What would be your answer if the repair
cost is ₹ 5,000 and pledge value is ₹ 2,000
PROVISION:
As per Sec.179, where a person pledges goods in which he has only a limited
interest, the pledge is valid to the extent of that interest.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, Mr. X who pledged the mobile phone has spent only ₹
2,000. Therefore, the pledge made by him is valid up to ₹ 2,000.
CONCLUSION:
 Pledge is valid up to ₹ 2,000 . True owner can claim the mobile from pledgee
by paying ₹ 2,000. If the repair cost is ₹ 5,000, the true owner can claim the
mobile by paying ₹ 2,000 to pledgee and paying ₹ 3,000 to Mr.X

Srushti acquired valuable diamond at a very low price by a voidable contract under
the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The voidable contract was not
rescinded. Srushti pledged the diamond with Mr. VK. Is this a valid pledge under the
Indian Contract Act, 1872? (N-19, 2M)
PROVISION:
 As per Sec.178A, when the pawnor has obtained possession of the goods pledged
by him under a contract voidable u/s 19 or 19A,
but the contract has not been rescinded at the time of the pledge,
the pawnee acquires a good title to the goods,
 provided he acts in good faith and without notice of the pawnor’s defect of title.
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, Srusthi acquired diamond under a voidable contract which was
not rescinded by the time she pledge it with Mr.VK.
CONCLUSION:
 Pledge is valid assuming VK (pawnee) acts in good faith and does not have notice
of Srusthi (pawnor) defect in title.

A buys a cycle from B. But leaves the cycle with the seller. B then pledges the
cycle with C, who does not know of sale to A. Determine the validity of pledge
PROVISION:
 A seller, in whose possession, the goods have been left after sale, can make
a valid pledge, provided the Pawnee acts in good faith and he has no
knowledge of the defect in title of the pawnor .
ANALYSIS:
 In the given case, Mr. B sold cycle to A. But A left the Cycle with B.
CONCLUSION:
 Pledge is valid because Pawnee acted in good faith and does not know the
sale to A.

Bailor’s Fault Bailee’s Fault
Bailment is completed Bailment is Completed
Bailee ready to return the goods Bailor is ready to receive the goods
Bailor is not coming to receive goods Bailee is not returning the goods
Bailor shall pay necessary expenses
incurred by bailee for preserving the
goods even after completion of
bailment
Bailor need not pay the expenses
incurred by bailee for preserving
the goods even after completion of
bailment
Bailee is not liable for loss or damage
of goods, if he has taken reasonable
care.
Bailee is liable for loss or damage
of goods, even if he has taken
reasonable care.

Concept Covered Sec.
No
Definition of Bailment 148
Symbolic Delivery 149
Bailor’s duty to disclose faults in goods 150
Bailor’s duty to pay necessary expenses in case of GB for the benefit of Bailor 158
Bailor’s duty to indemnify Bailee due to defective title 164
Bailee’s duty to take reasonable care in the absence of instructions 151
Bailee exempted from liability if above said RC is taken 152
Bailee liable to bear expenses of separation if goods mixed w/o bailor’s consent 156
Bailee liable to pay damages if such mixed goods are not separable 157
Bailee duty to return the goods after completion of purpose 160
Bailee’s liability to compensate when goods are not returned and damaged 161

BAILMENT– SECTION NUMBERS (1)

BAILMENT – SECTION NUMBERS (2)

No
Definition of Pledge 172
Pawnee’s Right to Retain 173
Pawnees’ Right to retain against subsequent advances 174
Pawnee’s right to extraordinary expenses incurred 175
Pawnee’s right to sue and right to sell 176
Pawnor’s right to Redeem 177
Pledge by Mercantile Agent 178
Pledge by person who obtained possession under voidable contract 178A
Pledge by a person having limited interest 179

No
Bailor’s right to terminate in case of Un-Authorized use (UAU) 153
Bailor’s right to claim compensation in case of UAU 154
Bailor’s right to restore goods in case of GB for the benefit of bailee 159
Bailee’s right to return goods to any one of the joint bailors 165
Bailee’s right of particular lien 170
General Lien of certain Bailee’s 171
Bailee not liable tor return of goods to bailor without title 166
Right of third person to apply to the court to stop the delivery to bailor 167
Finder’s Right to sue and Right to retain 168
Finder’s right to sell 169
Bailor or Bailee can file a suit against wrong doer 180
Compensation obtained from above suit shall be apportioned 181

Sec.No Concept Covered
135 Discharge of Surety when creditor compounds with PD
136 Surety not discharged when creditor compounds with TP
137 Surety not discharged when creditor forbear’s to sue PD
138 Release of one co-surety does not discharge others
139 Surety discharged by creditor’s act or omission
140 Surety obtains creditor’s rights when he pays or performs
141 Surety has a right over the securities in possession of creditor
142 Guarantee obtained by misrepresentation is invalid
143 Guarantee obtained by concealment is invalid
144 Guarantee cannot be enforced until other co-surety joins
145 Implied promise to indemnity by PD to Surety
146 Co-Suerties liable to contribute equally
147 Liability of Co-suerties bound in different sums

Sec.No Concept Covered
124 Definition of Indemnity
125 Rights of Indemnity Holder when suit is filed
126 Definition of Guarantee
127 Consideration for guarantee: How and to Whom
128 Co-extensive liability of Surety
129 Definition of Continuing Guarantee
130 Revocation of Continuing Guarantee by Notice
131 Revocation of Continuing Guarantee by Surety’s death
132 Liability of two co-suerities to the creditor is not affected by
arrangement between co-suerities
133 Discharge of Surety by variance in the contract between PD and CR
134 Discharge of Surety by Discharge of Principal Debtor

BAILMENT AND PLEDGE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to BAILMENT AND PLEDGE

Similar to BAILMENT AND PLEDGE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BAILMENT AND PLEDGE