The relationship of bailor and bailee never came into existence because plaintiff did not entrust his coat to defendant.
A bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor exists when the bailee receives no benefit from the bailment.
In a bailment such as this, entered for the sole benefit of the bailor, the bailee is obligated to exercise only a slight degree of care over the bailed goods.
A bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee exists where the bailor lends property to the bailee and receives nothing in return.
In the first example, the traveler (bailee) receives the use of the car, and the car rental company (bailor) receives money.
In a mutual-benefit bailment, the bailor has responsibilities as well as the bailee.
(xi) In special circumstances breach of bailment may also consist of the bailee's failure to seek out the owner and return the goods to him/her in circumstances where the bailor is not in a position to claim them directly.
(xii) The custodial bailee may owe fiduciary duties, such as a duty to account for any unconsented profit derived from the relationship or the duty to avoid a conflict of interest between bailor and bailee.
(xv) In many respects (for example an alleged breach of the duty of care) the bailee carries the burden of showing that he/she has discharged the relevant obligation rather than being entitled to call on the bailor to prove the breach.
(xvii) A bailee is at common law generally debarred from disputing or questioning the bailor's title.
Under such an arrangement the bailee is granted the use and enjoyment of the work in return for some benefit to the bailor which, under the English law of chattel hiring, need not be financial.
Quaere whether this conclusion might be displaced where the bailor
is deemed to warrant his/her title in support of the lien.