Bailment – Delivery of personal chattels into the possession of another upon the promise that they be redelivered – When you borrow something from your mate on the basis that you will return it later, you’re actually entering into a bailment agreement Property v Contract Proprietary rights are goods against the whole world, contractual rights are enforceable against only parties privy to the contract A property right is different from contractual right and is stronger (*note property and proprietary’ interests are same thing) In exam you will need to be able to tell if there is a property right or not Legal Rights and Equitable Rights (Fairness) Examples of legal rights: estates, leases, easements, profits, mortgages and rent charge (can have same rights in equity). Where you don’t have a legal right you may still have a property right in equity -­‐Corrects court if the letter of the law is not followed Exam answer example = ...Sue does not have a legal claim against Tom because she has failed to comply with section 28(1) of the Act. When the sale of her home occurred, the transaction was not documented in a written document as required. However, she still has a claim in equity (insert case)... Victoria Park Racing v Taylor D built a Platform so Taylor could view races (this was before TV), then would broadcast results over the radio. P claimed it caused a loss of business. Held there was no ‘property’ in race itself. Race has to build a higher fence if it wants to stop spectators outside their land – ***note the problem with Google Earth at the moment However, if you format it then it becomes property R v McKay McKay charged with murdering Wicks, who had been stealing fowls from his property. The courts held that the sentence of murder should be reduced to manslaughter; given there is an inherent right to protect one’s land. Judiciary recognized that under some circumstances you can take extraordinary measures to protect property. (Unique case) Licences Where rights stop licences begin. Bare licence – verbal and revocable at will (e.g. getting a ball from neighbour’s yard) Contractual license – if licence contracted breached remedy is in damages (only) *Property grants you either an injunction or superior damages, a better remedy Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Cowell paid to enter racecourse, got very drunk and kicked out, unlawfully he argued. Cowell sued for damages in assault. Cowell tried to claim a proprietary right, and therefore would be entitled to greater damages/injunction. Courts held there was only a contractual license, damages limited to admittance fee Exam Answer: It appears from the facts that (Sam) has only a license to be on the property because there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Once his license was terminated he became a trespasser. He can make a claim against (whomever) but he will be limited to damages (Cowell). Heidke v Sydney City Council Heidke wrote to City council seeking hire of lands, as he was organizer of Peace and Friendship carnival. Council agreed, but told them to pay in advance and that there would be no refund if grounds unfit for use. Heidke hired grounds, then Council later sought to revoke license. Issue was whether the license could be revoked. It was held that this is a distinguished decision from Cowell, coupled license with a property interest in order to find the equitable decision Exam Answer: It appears from the facts that (Chris) has a proprietary interest coupled with a licence because (insert facts). Accordingly, he will likely be able to get an injunction from the Courts preventing (whomever) from stopping Chris from [insert activity] (Heidke). Rights v Licences (1) Bare Licences a. Revocable b. Not binding on third parties (2) Contractual licences a. Probably irrevocable (but if revoked claim in damages only) (3) Licences couple with a proprietary interest a. Irrevocable b. Binding on third parties Jaggard v Sawyer Issue before the court was whether to grant an injunction rather than damages. The plaintiff argued that by awarding damages rather than an injunction the trial judge had license a continuing invasion of her property rights. The basis of the trial decision rested on that the plaintiff’s injury was small, the injury to the plaintiff was capable of being estimated in money, the injury could be compensated by a monetary award and that it would be oppressive to grant an injunction. Court held that normally an injunction would be granted where there is a breach, but that as these were unusual circumstances the court did have jurisdiction to award damages even though this would result in a continuing invasion of private property rights.