British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd [1975] QB 303
Property law; chattels; lease of chattels; implied obligation of hirer to return property.
Facts: Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd (IPH) arranged by telephone to hire a crane from British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd (BCH). BCH sent a form to IPH, setting out the conditions of the hire, including a term that said the hirer would be responsible for recovering the crane from soft ground, and a term that the hirer would indemnify BCH for expenses associated with use of the crane. IPH never signed or returned the form. IPH told BCH's driver which route to take to deliver the crane. Because the route went over a marsh, IPH warned the driver that he would need to use 'navimats' where the ground was soft. The driver, rather than waiting for IPH to supply the navimats, drove the crane over the marsh without them and it sank into the soft ground. IPH recovered the crane. The following day, the driver tried again, this time using navimats, but the crane again sank into the marsh.
Issue: BCH were responsible for the first sinking of the crane, because it had resulted from the negligence of their own driver. But who was responsible for the costs of recovering the crane from the marsh after it had sunk the second time?
Decision: IPH were responsible for the costs of recovering the crane from the marsh on the second occasion.
Reason: The Court of Appeal held that the written terms in the form, making IPH responsible for recovering the crane, were effectively incorporated into the contract. Lord Denning MR also explained that, even without the written terms, there would have been a term implied into the hire contract. He said (at 312):
"A bailee is not liable for loss or damage which he can prove occurred without any default on his part: but the return of the vehicle is different. It is the duty of the hirer to return the vehicle at the end of the hiring to the owner, and to pay the cost of doing so. Although he is not liable for loss or damage occurring without his fault, nevertheless he is liable to do what is reasonable to restore the property to the owner".