Commercial Law Tutorial 4 PDF

Preview

Summary

Pearson v Rose and Young [1951] 1 K. 275 MA when selling a second hand car cannot sell it in ‘the ordinary course of business’ of an MA, unless he sells the registration book with it  Purchaser buying the car w/o reg book will not obtain good title to the car  If he buys the car and the book, he ...

Description

Commercial Law Tutorial 14 Pearson v Rose and Young [1951] 1 K.B. 275   

MA when selling a second hand car cannot sell it in ‘the ordinary course of business’ of an MA, unless he sells the registration book with it Purchaser buying the car w/o reg book will not obtain good title to the car If he buys the car and the book, he must prove that both were in MA’s possession with the consent of the owner

Stadium Finance v Robbins [1962] 2. Q.B. 664  





D left a car he wanted to sell with car dealer, taking the key with him, intending to control the sale himself, but left the reg book in the locked glove compartment Without Ds actual authority, dealer, who was a MA under the FA, purported to sell the car through a HP with the claimants. First instalment was not paid – Cs tried to repossess the car under the agreement Sale of the car without the reg book and ignition key by the dealer to Cs for purpose of HP agreement was not a sale in the ordinary course of business of a MA within the meaning under s2(1) – Cs claim failed “goods” bears ordinary meaning and includes a car without ignition key and reg book. Car was in dealer’s condition

Beverley Acceptances Ltd v Oakley [1982] RTR 417  

Car reg document is not a document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of possession/control of goods within the definition of ‘document of title’ It only specifies who is the keeper of the vehicle for road tax purposes Who does nemo dat rule protect? YES 





NO The owner giving consent due to fraud/deception is not taken into account by mitigating the impact – B2 may still assert good title – rights of original owner not upheld and may be risky where original owner is not skilled/is naive or vulnerable to another Constructive delivery may act against the seller’s interests as it can be deemed to have taken place even where S had not explicitly meant for that to happen. That being said, this often reflects the reality of the transaction at hand, rather than offering an unfair/unjust level of protection to S – Four Point Garage v Carter – S was really acting as a bailee for the purpose of the transaction to B2: should have the rights of a bailee rather than the rights of the seller Seller expected to have a good understanding of legal terms etc relating to the contract, in order to maintain their rights VS it being easy for the sub-buyer to obtain rights – e.g. s1(4) FA – what







Efforts made to trace original owner where the goods are stolen – nemo dat s9 exception does not offer protection over stolen goods and shows they must be returned to the original owner – national employers v Jones Ultimate principle is fair, in that nobody can give better title than what he possesses – there are thresholds in place to ensure that only where another party has full title to the goods can they sell them = ‘all or nothing’ Non-owner can pass title in certain circumstances. MA can

Commercial Law Tutorial 24



counts as ‘documents of title’ – cases above relate to Reg book being misinterpreted as being a document of title Number of exceptions in place makes it more likely than not that a party will be able to assert their right against the original owner by fitting in with at least one

pass title when given owner’s consent – however the consent may be practically invalid when the owner is defrauded/deceived, yet it still stands...