“This is a case of bailment. The law relating to the liability of a bailee for breach of a bailment is founded on the principle of restitutio in integrum, which means that the party damnified is entitled to such sum of money as would put him in as good a position as if the goods have not been lost or damaged.  In other words, the law will compensate him for the actual loss he has suffered but will not enable him to make a gain as a result of the breach: Building and Engineering Holidays Scheme Management Ltd. v. Post Office (1966) 1 KB 247 at 261. In the practical application of the above mentioned principle to cases where the bailees were incapable of returning the goods bailed, Judges have evolved rules for compensating the party damnified. These rules may be paraphrased thus: the general rule is that a bailee is liable for the value of the goods as assessed at the date of the judgment in the case: Rosenthal v. Anderson & Son Ltd. (1946) KB 374 at 377; but if the goods are of the types that are readily available in the market, then, he is liable for their market price and, if the goods are not so available but can be replaced, he is liable for the cost of replacement: J.E. Hall Ltd. v. Barclay(1937) 3 All ER 620 at 623; in appropriate cases where the person damnified suffered damage or loss of such a nature that it flowed directly from the breach, he may also recover such damages as may compensate his loss: General and Finance Facilities Ltd. v. Cook Cars (Romford) Ltd. (1963) 2 All ER 314. Per BELLO, J.S.C. in WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL V. JOSEPH CEYLON KOROYE (1977-LCER-1185-SC) at P. 4, Paras. C-D.