A bailee can be used as a manager of a term asset portfolio or be appointed to manage a rental property in the absence of the owner. The leaseee ensures that the assets are kept secure until the owner of these assets is able to take over the administration and cannot at any time, for personal reasons, use them. The bailee must exercise due diligence at all times. On the other hand, if the goods are entrusted to the Bailee to its sole advantage, then it owes the Bailor extraordinary care. Imagine, for example, that your neighbour asks you to lend him your car to go to the downtown grocery store because his car is in store. or a friend asks if she can borrow your party roof. A bailor can be held liable for negligence. If the bailor receives an advantage from the assessment, it has a duty to inform the leaseee of known defects and to conduct an appropriate review of the other defects. Suppose the Tranquil Chemical Manufacturing Company produces an insecticide to keep the Plattsville Chemical Storage Company in tanks until it is sold. One of the lots is defective and spills out of the tanks. This acid could have been detected by a routine examination, but Tranquil does not inspect the batch.

The tanks leak and the chemical is built on the ground until it explodes. As Tranquil, the Bailor, gained an advantage from storage, it had a duty to warn Plattsville, and its non-compliance makes it responsible for all damage caused by the explosion. One of the problems with the use of the majority approach is the inherent ambiguity of standards of care. What is “gross” neglect versus “ordinary” negligence? The level of care becomes even more complicated by the tendency of the courts to take into account the value of the goods; the lower the value of the product than the value of the product, the less the obligation of the leaseee to pay attention to it. To some extent, this approach makes sense because it seems to encourage a person who protects diamonds to take more precautions against theft than a person who holds three paperbacks. But the value of the merchandise should not be the whole story: some goods obviously have great value for the owner, regardless of a lack of interior value. The bailee`s report to the Bailor is described in a contractual agreement called lease. Another problem with applying the majority approach to the standard of care is whether or not the leaseee received a benefit when the Bailor did not expressly consent to compensation. For example, a bank allows its customers free access to safes. Is the bank a “free bailee” that owes only a little care to its bailor or has it made the boxes available as a business business to keep them to its customers? Some courts cling to one theory, others to another, indicating the difficulty with the tripartite division of the standard of care. In many cases, regardless of formal theory, however, the courts consider the actual benefits that must be inferred. So, if a customer enters a car show and leaves her car to the lot while she tests the new car, most courts would bear that two bonds were created for mutual benefit: (1) the lease to keep the old car at random, with the customer as bailor; and (2) the lease to try the new car, with the customer as bailee.

The temporary surrender of control or detention of PERSONAL PROPERTY by one person, the Bailor, in the hands of another, the Bailee, for a specific purpose on which the parties have agreed. Most courts use a complex (some say boring) tripartite sharing of responsibility. If the lease is carried out in the exclusive interest of the owner (bailor), the bailee is only responsible for negligence or gross fraud: the duty of care is low. Imagine, for example, that your car collapses on a dark night and you beg a motorist who passes by to tow it to a gas station. or ask your neighbour if you can keep your trailer in her garage.