The Application of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 to Actions in Bailment
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1978.tb01492.x |
| Date | 01 November 1978 |
| Published date | 01 November 1978 |
| Author | N. E. Palmer |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Volume
41
November
1978
No.
6
THE
APPLICATION
OF
THE
TORTS
(INTERFERENCE WITH
GOODS)
ACT
1977
TO
ACTIONS IN
BAILMENT
THE purpose of this article is to suggest that certain provisions
of
the Torts (Interference with
Goods)
Act
1977
may be circumvented
by bringing an independent action for breach
of
bailment.
The Act seeks to modify the traditional remedies for the
protection
of
interests in chattels. In
so
doing, it fails to define the
relationship between those remedies and the full spectrum of rights
enjoyed by
a
bailor against his bailee. It is therefore uncertain haw
far actions in bailment
fall
subject to the enactment. The neglect
of
the precise identity and diversity
of
such actions seems to have
led to some gaps in the fabric
of
the Act. It is possible that,
in
certain
areas,
{these gaps could frustrate its operation altogether.
There
is
already sane tentative authority
for
the view that
a
statute which
seeks
to
exclude or modify
an
action
in
tort does
not encompass an action
for
breach
of
bailment,
even
where the
bwo
are substantially congruent. In
Harold
Stephen
di
Co.
Ltd.
v.
Post Ofice
the plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction order-
ing the Post Office to deliver up mtain postal packets. The plaintiffs
sought to avoid section
29
(1)
of
the Post
Office
Act
1969,
which
provides that “no proceedings in tort
shall
lie against the Past
Office in re-t
of
any loss or damage suffered by any person,’’
by
suing
(inter
dia)
in bailment.z
No
concluded opinion
was
expressed upon this argument because the Court
of
Appeal decided
that the particular relmedy could not, in the circumstances, be
granted.3 Lord Denning
M.R.
declared hawever that he would like
1
[1977]
1
W.L.R. 1172.
2 There was
an
alternative claim for detinue, a form
of
action which may well
have
been
originally contractual;
see
Clerk
and Lindsell,
Torts
(14th
ed.),
paras.
1177-1178 and cases cited therein. It
is
established, however, that letters transmitted
via the Post OWce are not in normal circumstances transmitted pursuant
to
any
contract with that institution:
Triefus
&
Co.
V.
Post Ofice
C19571
2
Q.B.
352;
Wadsworth
v.
P.M.G.
(1939) 56 T.L.R. 1;
Building and Civil Engineering Holidays
Scheme Management Ltd.
v.
Post Ofice
119661 1
Q.B.
247;
Moukataff
v.
B.O.A.C.
[1967]
1
Lloyd’s Rep. 396. Detinue is abolished and reconstituted by
ss.
2
(1)
and
2 (2)
of
the
Torts
(Interference with Goods) Act 1977 discussed infru at
p.
713.
8
Applying
Morris
v.
Redland Bricks Ltd.
[
19701 A.C. 652.
629
VOL.
41-(6)
1
To continue reading
Request your trial