CASE
COMMENT
Title
of the Case : Adamson v. Jarvis
Equivalent Citation : 4 BING.66:29 R.R
503
DATE: 1827
PLAINTIFF………………………………………… ADAMSON
V.
RESPONDENT:……………………………………….JARVIS
INTRODUCTION
The contract of indemnification is
considered in this instance under Sections 124 and 125 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872. A contract of indemnification is one in which one party rescues the
other from damage caused by the promisor's own action or the conduct of another
person. The question in this case was whether all of the damages that the
indemnity holder has to pay in an action in relation to anything to which the
pledge is if indemnifier applied? Is the plaintiff liable for damages because
he was entirely ignorant that the respondent was not the true owner?
FACTS OF THE CASE
Jarvis gave Adamson livestock to be an
auctioneer. In this case, the auctioneer was represented by the fact of
principle that he was the true owner of the livestock and commodities. The
auctioneer was uninformed that the principal had no authority to sell the
goods. According to the facts, the principal was forced to seek auctioneer
indemnification. In simple terms, indemnification is compensation for damages.
According to Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, indemnity is defined
as a contractual arrangement between two parties in which one party commits to
pay for possible losses or damages Jarvis was required to pay Adamson
compensation. Adamson was entitled to compensation he had to give to the
rightful owner of the animals, as well as any expenditures he had spent. The
indemnifier accepts the duty to indemnify voluntarily. Adamson was permitted to
sell the animals after following the instructions. However, Jarvis did not own
the cattle. The true owner of the livestock sued Adamson for conversion and was
victorious. Adamson was forced to pay damages, and he subsequently sued Jarvis
to be compensated for the loss he experienced in the form of damages to be
given to the true owner.incurred by the other party.Section -125 of the Indian
Contract Act of 1872 applies when the indemnity holder is sued in a certain
scenario.
ISSUES RAISED
(1) That
whether indemnity claimant has been obliged to pay all of the losses that the
pledge of indemnifier relates to in any suit?
(2) Whether
Adamson was entitled to claim since he was entirely uninformed that Jarvis was
not the true owner?
JUDGEMENT
The outcome of this lawsuit was that
Jarvis was forced to pay Adamson damages because he lied about his ownership.
It was determined that the defendant was accountable for the plaintiff's loss
and must pay him in accordance with Section-125 of the 2nd rule.
CONCLUSION
Indemnification requires one party to
indemnify the other if he incurs certain expenditures specified in the
indemnity contract. Automobile rental firms, for example, state that the person
hiring is responsible for any damage to the rental car caused by his reckless
driving and must indemnify the rental company.The evolution of indemnification
contracts in the IT industry has received the most attention recently. In
certain cases, the existence of an indemnity might make a substantial impact, whilst
in others, an indemnity contract would have little or no effect. Another novel
notion in contract law is the 'Indemnification Lottery,' which says that in
civil instances of indemnity, the outcome can never be foreseen. The word was
coined by Brazilian jurist Leonardo Castro.A simple indemnification clause will
not solve liability concerns. The law favours those who want to evade
accountability or seek exemption from liability for their activities. The basic
logic is that a negligent party should not be allowed to totally shift all
liabilities and damages imposed on it to another, non-negligent party. For
example, a ticket to an amusement park may state that everyone who enters the
facility will not hold the management accountable. Because it is not founded on
a contract, such a defence is unlikely to succeed in court.
0 Comments