Equipment lease and hire

Contract of hire

Equipment leasing, or equipment hiring, is an expression applied to various agreements which involve a contract of simple hire or bailment of goods.

The lease or hire of goods or equipment is an alternative way to access and use such goods or equipment aside from the traditional purchasing route. The essential difference between a contract of sale and a contract of hire is that a sale provides for the express or implied transfer of ownership of assets to the purchaser, whereas hiring assets does not.

Terms such as ‘lessor’, ‘lessee’, ‘hirer’, and other similar terms, do seem to cause a lot of confusion within these types of arrangements. For the purposes of clarity, ‘hirer’ or ‘lessee’ is the party who is taking the equipment on lease and the ‘supplier’ or ‘lessor’ is the party who supplies the equipment and in turn is paid a rental fee.

There are many reasons why parties may consider leasing or hiring assets since it provides a form of financing whereby payments are made in instalments over an agreed period of time. Asset finance is increasingly popular as

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Commercial News

The trade mark licensing ‘black hole’ (Lifestyle Equities v Sportsdirect)

IP analysis: This case is of interest to trade mark lawyers who advise clients on and litigate trade marks, particularly where the trade marks are licensed. In the UK, trade mark licenses can be registered, which confers benefits on the licensee, but there are also more subtle benefits for the licensor, which are explored in this judgment. Although the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) sets out the rules of the statutory licensing scheme, its effects and who it applies to, practical questions can and do arise. This case provides a close analysis of the scheme, and answers three discrete questions. First, sub-licensees of an exclusive license need not necessarily be registered to recover damages; second, non-exclusive sub licensees may not be joined to proceedings; and third, while late registration of a licence can cure non-registration, there are significant safety mechanisms to prevent over-recovery or improper recovery of damages. Written by Sam Fisher, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Failure to prevent fraud—an effective means to combat corporate crime?

Corporate Crime analysis: While previous failure to prevent offences—bribery and tax evasion—have resulted in few prosecutions so far, they have arguably influenced a corporate compliance culture in the UK. In this third and last part of our series on the corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud, Aziz Rahman of Rahman Ravelli assesses the effectiveness of failure to prevent offences in holding corporate bodies to account for economic crime.

CAP extends advertising code scope to cover non-UK based licensed operators

The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has extended the scope of its Code to ensure consistent regulation of online advertising. Effective from 1 September 2025, the Code now applies to non-paid-for online marketing communications directed at UK consumers by advertisers who are subject to licensing conditions from UK public authorities or bodies mandating compliance with the CAP Code, even if those advertisers lack a UK-registered company address. This change specifically brings into scope social media content marketing by licensed gambling operators on their own channels, enabling the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Council to apply consistent rulings across such advertisements irrespective of the operators’ location. CAP has confirmed that the extension does not apply to other advertiser categories without a UK-registered address. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments on the impact of this change until Monday 1 December 2025, ahead of a formal review.