## Facts

- A motor dealer owned a Bedford van and negotiated a hire-purchase sale to a prospective customer.
- Pending completion of the hire-purchase agreement, the dealer allowed the customer to possess and use the van, on terms that the customer would license and insure it.
- The van broke down during the customer’s use.
- The customer delivered the van to a garage for repairs; the garage did not know the customer was not the owner.
- The garage repaired the van and retained possession because the repair charges were unpaid.
- The dealer withdrew permission for the customer’s continued possession, located the van at the garage, and demanded its return.
- The garage refused delivery, asserting an artificer’s (mechanic’s) lien for the repair costs.
- In detinue proceedings, the trial court ordered the garage to deliver the van to the dealer; the garage appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a repairer can assert a common-law artificer’s possessory lien against the true owner when the chattel was delivered for repair by a bailee rather than the owner.
2. Whether the bailee had actual, implied, or apparent authority from the owner to arrange necessary repairs and transfer possession to a repairer so as to bind the owner’s interest.

## Decision

- The appellate court allowed the garage’s appeal and reversed the order requiring delivery of the van to the owner.
- The court held the garage had lawful possession and a valid artificer’s lien against the owner for unpaid repair charges.
- By voluntarily entrusting the van to the customer for use, the owner impliedly authorized acts reasonably incidental to that use, including obtaining necessary repairs and delivering the van to a repairer.
- The garage’s lack of notice of any limits on the customer’s authority supported enforcement of the lien against the owner.

## Legal Principles

- A common-law artificer’s lien is a possessory security interest that depends on the repairer’s continuing actual possession of the chattel for unpaid charges for work done on it.
- A bailee in possession may have implied authority, arising from the purpose and circumstances of the bailment, to do acts reasonably necessary or incidental to that purpose.
- When an owner places a chattel in another’s possession for use, implied authority can include contracting for and delivering the chattel for necessary repairs to keep it fit for that use.
- A repairer who takes possession for repair in good faith, without notice that the person delivering the chattel lacks authority, may assert the lien against the true owner if the bailee had such implied authority.

## Conclusion

The court held that entrusting a vehicle to a bailee for use ordinarily carries implied authority to obtain necessary repairs, so a garage that takes possession for such repairs without notice of any limitation may retain the vehicle under an artificer’s lien against the owner until the reasonable repair charges are paid.


Tappenden v. Artus, 3 All E.R. 213 (Eng. C.A. 1963)