Academic opinions

Question 1

J Adams ‘Sale or return contracts’

Answer 1

Sale on approval should be distinguished from sale or return
to reject the goods what b must do is often less in diff contracts
is in interests of S to know when B not want the goods
should be sufficient that goods are ready to collect at future date

Question 2

D Webb

Answer 2

minor but irreversible changes not sufficinet to transform the goods
key q: have they undergone a transformation

Question 3

Tan Tock Lin

Answer 3

prop has central significant in makring out contracts from other types
interp is a crucial task
ownership is relaitve but SGA not introduced this

Question 4

David McLaughlan ‘A Better way of sense’

Answer 4

Imputing intention needs to be objective

Question 5

L Seal ‘Risk and the law of sale’

Answer 5

Head v Tattersel - troublesome
3 stages of contract: 1) transfer of prop 2) delivery of possession 3) passing of risk
Can take place simultaneously or in any order

Question 6

Iwan Davies ‘Continuing dilemma’s

Answer 6

s.16 problematic decision in Re wait rests on 2 bases 1) not sufficiently earmarks 2) impossibility of specific peformance
come the time to overrule Re wait or at least recognise narrowness

Question 7

Anne De Moor

Answer 7

for objective approach based on need for certainty

Question 8

Sarah Worthington

Answer 8

Common law treats bulk sales and unascertained goods differently
equity equally discriminating

Question 9

Columbia law review

Answer 9

Courts are astute in impliying intention/assent

Question 10

Law Com and bradgate

Answer 10

Old law pre reform non reflection of commercial expectation

Question 11

T Burns ‘ Better late than never’

Answer 11

previous law inadequate
reform needed to meet commercial needs, nothing before due to buyer beware + insurance
Reforms do not resolve all claims: nothing about insolvency claims and nothign on issue of 1 co-owner in insolvency
British rules on passing of prop insufficient - USA faced similar problems as this and opted for codification
Piecemeal change better than no change

Question 12

J Crinion ‘All that glitters’

Answer 12

the interp and app of s.16 by the judiciary has exacerbated to a large extent
is logical and indefensible
apparent need for certainty has gone
courts applied s.16 rigorously - likes maths problem
Required not too drastic law change or judicial change in view
allow equitable principles to intervene
Re Wait stands for more than is decided - embodiment of restrictive and inflexible way of thinking and should be departed from
Equity not to be discounted due to uncertainty

Question 13

N McKay

Answer 13

Law com ommitted to say about risk passing with co-ownership
no clear provisions for whether risk passes w co-onwership
many parties contract to ensure the issue of risk is considered
Little legal action in this area which suggests a special rule is superlfuous - needs to be resolved

Question 14

Andre Naidoo’

Answer 14

rational for drafting is to enhace consumer protection

Question 15

NR Campbell

Answer 15

B Should be more interest in what S doing with the goods not what they are promising

Question 16

Goode

Answer 16

SGA not helpful in definiting unascetained goods and also fails to distinguish between wholly and quasi

Question 17

Dobson and Stokes

Answer 17

no more than common sense that until parties identify the goods no prop passes

Question 18

Ji Lan Yap ‘Predictability, Certainty and Party Autonomy’

Answer 18

Com law is often concrned w exploring complext evolving forms of commercial arrangements
important to bear in mind party autonomy, predictability and ensure they’re not departed from without good reason
Res Cognitas causes great uncertainty + goes aginst party autonomy
Unsure whether recent developments have prioritized these goals and should be better promoted
Brexit could result in further uncertainty