The document defines bailment under Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act as the delivery of goods by one person (bailor) to another (bailee) for a specific purpose, with an agreement for the goods to be returned or disposed of according to the bailor's instructions. The case of Ultzen v. Nichols established that taking possession of a customer's coat by a restaurant employee and storing it away created a bailment relationship, making the restaurant liable as bailee when the coat was stolen. If the customer had stored their own coat, it would have been a license agreement without bailee responsibilities for loss. The key factor was who took physical possession and control of the stored goods.

1. Section 148 of Indian Contract Act 1872, defines bailment as follows 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 person delivering them. The person delivering the
goods is called the bailor and the person to whom they are delivered is called the bailee.
The case:
Ultzen v. Nichols [1894] 1 Q.B. 92
-shows bailment versus license arrangement
-the plaintiff was a regular at the defendant’s restaurant
-the waiter took the plaintiff’s coat and hat and put them away
-when the plaintiff went to leave, his coat and hat were missing
-he sued as a bailor
-was there a bailment? The defendant claimed that there wasn’t and that he merely provided a
place for the plaintiff’s coat and hat
-the court said no, there was a bailment
-it was the defendant’s employee who took the coat and hat
-in a license agreement, the defendant would provide a place for your things for you to
put them there at your own convenience
-when the waiter took possession of the plaintiff’s coat and hat and chose where to put
them, the defendant became a bailee through his employee
-if the applicant would have hung his coat himself, he would not have won because the
arrangement would have been one of a licensor/licencee
Explanation of the judgementlike when you park your car at the mall - if it gets stolen, the mall owners are not
responsible because you retain possession
-a duty in the normal sense would be owed, but not the duty of a bailee

2. -it would be different if a valet parks your car - they would have possession and
responsibilities as bailee.