9. A gives silk to B a tailor, to be stitched into a coat. B promises ‘A’ to deliver the coat as soon as it is made and to give ‘A’ three months credit for the charges. Is B entitled to retain the Coal until the charges are paid.

1. Facts of the Case

• ‘A’, the owner of a piece of silk, delivers it to ‘B’, a tailor, with instructions to stitch it into a coat.
• ‘B’, the tailor, agrees to the arrangement and promises to deliver the coat as soon as it is made.
• Additionally, B promises to allow A a credit period of three months for payment of the tailoring charges — meaning A need not pay immediately on delivery.
• Once the coat is made, B refuses to deliver the coat unless A pays the charges immediately.
• The issue arises: Can B lawfully retain possession of the coat until his charges are paid, even though he had agreed to a credit period?

2. Issues in the Case

1. Whether B, the tailor, has a right to retain the coat under a contract of bailment until his tailoring charges are paid.
2. Whether B’s promise to grant three months’ credit affects his right of lien on the goods.
3. Whether B’s retention of the coat amounts to a breach of contract or whether he is protected under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
4. Whether A can compel delivery of the coat without payment during the credit period.

3. Legal Principles Covered

a) Contract of Bailment (Sections 148–171, Indian Contract Act, 1872)

• Section 148 defines bailment as the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall be returned or otherwise dealt with according to the directions of the person delivering them.
• In this case, A is the bailor (owner of the silk), and B is the bailee (tailor who receives the silk to make a coat).
• The purpose of the bailment is the stitching of the coat.

b) Bailee’s Right of Lien – Section 170, Indian Contract Act, 1872

• Section 170 states:
  “Where the bailee has, in accordance with the purpose of the bailment, rendered any service involving the exercise of labour or skill in respect of the goods bailed, he has, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a right to retain such goods until he receives due remuneration for the services he has rendered in respect of them.”
• This is known as a particular lien — a right to retain only those goods on which labour or skill has been applied.
• However, this right exists only in the absence of a contract to the contrary.

c) Contract to the Contrary

• The phrase “in the absence of a contract to the contrary” means that if the bailee agrees otherwise, his right of lien is waived or suspended.
• Here, B explicitly agreed to give A a credit period of three months for payment.
• By this promise, B gave up his immediate right to payment, and therefore, he cannot claim to retain the goods until the amount is paid.
• The right of lien is a possessory right, available only when payment is immediately due.

d) Relevant Case Law

1. Chari v. Arunchalam (1916) 40 Mad 675 –
   It was held that if the bailee has given credit for the payment of his charges, he loses his right of lien, since payment is not immediately due.
2. Hollis v. Claridge (1819) 4 Taunt 807 –
   A tailor who agreed to give credit could not retain possession of clothes after finishing them, as the contract postponed payment.
3. Section 170, Indian Contract Act, 1872 –
   The lien exists only when payment is due “forthwith” and there is no agreement deferring payment.

e) Nature of the Right of Lien

• The right of lien is a special right, not a right of ownership.
• It allows possession to be retained until payment, but does not allow sale or disposal of the goods.
• Once the right of lien is lost (e.g., by giving credit), it cannot be revived unless the agreement is rescinded.

4. Possible Judgement

• B is not entitled to retain the coat because he had expressly agreed to grant A three months’ credit for payment of tailoring charges.
• By agreeing to give credit, B has waived his right of lien under Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• The lien is available only when the payment is immediately due; since it is not due for three months, B cannot withhold delivery.
• Therefore, A is entitled to immediate delivery of the coat, and B must sue for payment after the credit period expires if A fails to pay.
• Retaining the coat contrary to this agreement would amount to a breach of contract by B.

Final Decision:

B is not entitled to retain the coat until payment.
By promising to give three months’ credit, he has waived his right of lien as per Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
A can demand delivery of the coat immediately, and B may claim his tailoring charges only after the expiry of the credit period.

Supporting Provisions:

• Section 148 – Bailment defined
• Section 170 – Bailee’s right of particular lien
• Contract to the contrary – waiver of lien

About lawgnan:

Learn how Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs the Bailee’s Right of Lien and how agreements like granting a credit period can waive this right. Visit Lawgnan.in to explore detailed legal case summaries, exam-ready notes, and simplified explanations of bailment, lien, and other contract law concepts. Whether you’re preparing for your LLB exams or enhancing your legal understanding, Lawgnan.in provides high-quality study material based on real-life examples and landmark cases. Strengthen your foundation in Indian Contract Law with expert guidance and structured, easy-to-learn resources today.