The evolution of the concept of sub-bailment can be traced back to the evolution of the concept of bailment. One of the first mentions on the subject of sub-bailment can be found in Halsbury’s Laws of England where it is said that a sub-bailee is a person to whom the actual possession of goods is transferred by someone who is not himself the owner of goods, but has a present right to possession of them as the bailee of the owner. In theory though the concept of sub-bailment has existed over a period of time in practice its evolution has been recent.
The legal opinion on the concept of sub-bailment was developed only 38 years ago with the case of Morris v. C.W. Martin & Sons Ltd. This case gave way to the legal relationship between an owner of the goods and the sub bailee. However it was the pioneer container case which seized the opportunity to expound the doctrinal basis of sub-bailment,
In order to understand the doctrinal basis of sub-bailment it will be pertinent to define that what does a doctrine mean? And what would we mean when we talk about the doctrinal basis of sub-bailment.
Now, a doctrine can be said to be a rule or a principal while doctrinal is a neutral term, which means relating to a doctrine. Therefore the obvious answer, which emerges for the second question is that the doctrinal basis of sub-bailment would mean the rule or principal basis of sub-bailment.
Although sub-bailment has been a commercial commonplace, the law has been rather slow to define the critical aspects of sub-bailment, the relationship of the parties and the nature of the contract. To understand the concept of sub-bailment it becomes necessary to have an excellent understanding of the concept of bailment as sub-bailment has its roots with the concept of bailment.
If goods are lost or damaged whilst in the possession of the sub-bailee then the relationship between the owner and the sub-bailee is thrown into the frame of focus. The owner may have no action against the principle bailee but against the sub-bailee the owner may have the right to sue. The question that arises now is that whether the owner has that right against the sub-bailee (the sub-bailee being the third party) directly. Though there may be two contracts existing one between the bailor and the principal bailee and one between the principal bailee and the sub-bailee with the principal bailee being the only common party to both the contracts. And their being no privity of contract between the principal bailor and sub-bailee the question that remains is that whether there will be an independent cause of action that can be maintained by the principal bailor against the sub-bailee under the law of bailment, on the assumption that the contract of bailment is sui generis or in other words governed by its own principles.
