ABSTRACT
However, it has been suggested162 that someone who has hired property cannot be guilty of theft by virtue of any act which his contract of bailment entitles him to carry out. That is, his act of keeping (or indeed using) the property during the period of contractual hire, cannot be an appropriation. This would seem to have the effect of distinguishing between the gratuitous bailee and the bailee for reward. According to the closing words of s 3(1), the former would be guilty as soon as he decided not to return the goods. The latter could be guilty only if he did some act outside the terms of his contract. Thus, if, for example, D hires a car under a contract that did not prohibit the export of the property, he would not be guilty of theft if he took the car to France; if the contract did prohibit it, then presumably taking the property abroad would amount to an appropriation. The argument is that the hire contract is a contract of bailment and, thus, gives the bailee proprietary rights which it cannot be an appropriation to exercise because he is not assuming any right belonging to anyone other than himself.
