Sales 2

Question 1

what are we looking at today?

Answer 1

sale by non owner and what are the legal effects of that so when will ownership pass if sale by non owner

Question 2

1st thing?

Answer 2

disting concepts of ‘property’ and ‘title’ within the sale of goods;

Question 3

what is property and title referring to?

Answer 3

different aspects of ownership of the contract goods;

Question 4

what is the property referring to here

Answer 4

‘Property’=
when does ownership of the goods pass to the buyer, what does it mean when property passes= sale of goods from seller to buyer and essentially talk when does that ownership pass in that contract e.g difference btw specific etc, all rules of soga

Question 5

what are talking about today?

Answer 5

‘Title’=
(when) can a buyer become the owner of the goods, even if the seller is neither the owner nor has sold the goods with the owner’s consent?

= original owner of goods who hasnt consented to sale/ the innocent buyer who bought goods and paid for them and the actual seller non actual seller has gone- court decides who gets the goods

Question 6

what is the key rule governing this sit?

Answer 6

starting point for establishing ownership where been sale of goods = nemo dat rule ‘no one gives who possesses not’
- seller cannot pass on a better title than he himself posses- so if u dont have good title of goods you cant pass on good title to buyer

Question 7

what is this rule contained in

Answer 7

rule: contained in s.21 Sale of Goods Act 1979

Question 8

what is said in that act?

Answer 8

Subject to this Act, where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.

Question 9

e.g of nemo?

Answer 9

laptop stolen, thief sells onto 3rd then nemo dat should say that should come back to me, cant go to innocent buyer- innocent buyer would lose

Question 10

exceptions of rule?

Answer 10

developed to protect innocent 3rd party from unfairness buying goods and then finding out not owner.

Question 11

what are gonna look out?

Answer 11

exceptions

Question 12

what is a typical essay q?

Answer 12

do the nemo dat principle strike fair balance btw owner and innocent p

Question 13

what is the 1st exception?

Answer 13

• estoppel -recognised by s.21 wording;
• Occurs when owner acts in such a way that it appears that the seller has the right to sell the goods;- owner doing something that making look seller who not owner to auth goods so if does estopped from denying sellers right to say & innocent third-party buyer acquires good title;

seller isnt owner but looks to the 3rd party like they are dont ac have auth

Question 14

so what kind of conduct by owner amounts to conduct to deny?

Answer 14

more than just giving some1 possesion

Question 15

when does s.21 only apply?

Answer 15

Applies only where goods are sold, not where there is only an agreement to sell:

Shaw v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1987] 1 WLR 1332 (CA)
Claimant bought Porsche car from L, a rogue who had obtained the car from N, its owner, by claiming to want to show it to a prospective buyer. The owner N had also given L a letter stating that he had sold the car to L. Claimant agreed to buy the car and took possession of the car but L disappeared before S paid for the car.

Question 16

ca held for shaw?

Answer 16

C/A HELD: N, the original owner, was entitled to recover the car. S.21(1) did not apply as S had only agreed to buy.

Question 17

what if it is a case where goods sold?

Answer 17

estoppel might arise in 2 ways:

-representation/ negligence

Question 18

what is meant by estopp by repres?

Answer 18

whats rep? some kind of words or conduct which makes appear to 3rd party that seller has auth to sell goods

Question 19

case for estop rep?

Answer 19

Farquharson Brothers & Co. v. King & Co. [1902] AC 325 (HL)
F were timber merchants and C, their clerk was authorised to give delivery instructions but not sell. C fraudulently transferred some of the timber to himself then sold it to K.

H/L HELD: the defence of estoppel failed because the defendants had not acted on any representation made by F concerning the authority of the clerk.

Question 20

what is the next case about?

Answer 20

doctrine of estop succeeded- there was a rep from owner to buyer about ownership

Question 21

what is the next case?

Answer 21

Eastern Distributors v. Goldring [1957] 2 QB 600 (CA)
M wanted to buy car from C on H-P, but couldn’t afford the deposit. M and C devised a scheme to deceive Eastern, a finance company, and completed forms that represented that M’s van belonged to C and that M wanted to acquire the van on H-P. M didn’t pay any H-P instalments and instead sold the van to G, an innocent purchaser.

C/A HELD: E entitled to recover van from G. M was estopped from denying that C had authority to sell the van so M’s title had passed to E.

Question 22

WHAT IF U THINK ABOUT IN TERMS OF REP FOR CASE?

Answer 22

by filling in forms pretending that the motor dealer was owner, murphy was making intentioanl rep that poler owned van, so enough to stop from denying that coco had auth to sell van, so bc passed to eastern he didnt have a good time until passed to goldren and sold van to g.

Question 23

what is estop by neg case?

Answer 23

Mercantile Credit Co. Ltd. V. Hamblin [1965] 2 QB 242 (CA)
H wanted to raise money using her car as security and approached respectable local dealer. Dealer got her to sign blank forms and cheque. Dealer then filled out forms claiming title in her car and offering to sell it to the claimants, who would then sell it to H on H-P. H decided not to go ahead with loan but M claimed the car.

Question 24

held for mercantile?

Answer 24

C/A HELD: M’s claim failed. H was not estopped from denying that dealer had authority to sell the car.
She had not been negligent in signing the blank forms so had not made a representation that dealer was authorised to sell the car.- she was oener and ownership remained with her court said she werent neg

Question 25

next exception is?

Answer 25

Sale by a mercantile agent

Question 26

what about merch angets?

Answer 26

merch must be acting in course of business, if someone just doing someothing on ur bhelaf not merch agent- merch wouldnt state in contract ma it depends on facts of case also known as a factor

Question 27

s.21 (2)?

Answer 27

nothing in this act effects provision of merch a - sale of goods act say rules still apply - merch definied in s.1 of factors act 1889

Question 28

what happens if you are a merch a?

Answer 28

The expression “mercantile agent” shall mean a mercantile agent having in the customary course of his business as such agent authority either to sell goods, or to consign goods for the purpose of sale, or to buy goods, or to raise money on the security of goods.
- factors act

Question 29

what is the 2nd req of merch a?

Answer 29

The seller must be a mercantile agent;

The mercantile agent must be in possession of the goods or documents of title to the goods when he sells the goods.

Question 30

case for no.2?

Answer 30

Beverley Acceptances Ltd v. Oakley [1982] RTR 417 (CA)

Question 31

what is 3rd princ of ma?

Answer 31

The possession must have been gained with the owner’s consent;
Pearson v Rose & Young [1951] 1 KB 275 (CA)
Involved p who wanted to sell his car went to dealer to try ask how much car would get, did say dont sell just give opinion, dealer ask to get reg doc and dealer then pretended and left with reg doc so tricked pearson, dealer than had poss and reg and sold to 3rd parrty, pearson wants car, although cosnent poss of car not reg doc so cos hadn’t dealer couldnt sell car as merch ag as done without consent- not done in good faith

Question 32

what is 4th require?

Answer 32

Possession must have been acquired in his capacity as mercantile agent;

e.g say youd take car to garage for repairts,garage also sells cars they havent acquired in ma they required as repairer so it depends on intention

Question 33

what is 5th require?

Answer 33

ordinary course of busines, is it in normal working horus, does it look to 3rd party normal trans cos then nothing to lead byer to expectd doesnt have auth

Question 34

what is 6th require?

Answer 34

innocent 3rrd party to gain good title

Question 35

what is the 3rd exception?

Answer 35

Sale under a voidable title

Question 36

what does this exception come from?

Answer 36

S.23 SGA:
When the seller of goods has a voidable title to them, but his title has not been avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of the seller’s defect of title.

Question 37

what is emant by void and voidable?

Answer 37

Only applies to voidable- contract but little problem contract, can be resinded or voided off
-so could be misrep, duress - if u enter into contract then that contract voidable- have to avoid before goods sold on, so if you don’t avoid before goods sold on and its too late 3rd party = title to ontract

not a void one - contract at all. no partie can enforce contract

Question 38

what is the other point?

Answer 38

good faith and without good notice, similar to other excep but b.o.p different here, b.op. under s.23 for orignial owner of goods to prove buyer did not act in good faith other ones is diff way

Question 39

e.g of voidable title have they avoided it in time?

Answer 39

Lewis v. Averay (No 1) [1972] 1 QB 198 (CA)

L owned a car which he decided to sell. A rogue bought the car with a bad cheque by pretending to be a famous actor. Rogue then sold the car to A who bought the car in good faith.
HELD: Contract between L and rogue was voidable for fraudulent misrepresentation, but A had complete title to the car as he had bought it before L avoided the contract with the rogue. - didnt avoid

Question 40

How to avoid a voidable contract?

Answer 40

there is some attempt in this case before buys car

Car & Universal Finance Co Ltd v. Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525 (CA)
A rogue fraudulently induced C to sell his car. As soon as C became aware of the fraud, he contacted the police and the AA. The rogue sold the car on before he could be traced.
C/A HELD: Informing the police and relevant authorities was enough to avoid the contract. As C had avoided the contract before the car was resold by the rogue, CUFC acquired no title under s.23.

Question 41

so how?

Answer 41

avoid /resind- directly contact comm with other party and say want to call contract off hw not always poss if they diss so police and aa is enough

this case is controversial and other cases say mistake

Question 42

other related to case?

Answer 42

Newtons of Wembley Ltd v. Williams [1965] 1 QB 560 (CA)

Question 43

next ecep?

Answer 43

Sale by a buyer in possession- buyer of goods have poss but don’t have entitlemetne.g until finishes payments owenershup is not passed to them

S.9 FA 1889/ s.25(1) SGA 1979:- factors act slightly wider

if sells onto 3rd acting in good faith, titlte can pass to 3rd party- possesion of goods with consent of orginal buyer

Question 44

s.9? fa?

Answer 44

Where a person having bought or agreed to buy goods obtains with the consent of the seller possession of the goods or the documents of title to the goods the delivery or transfer by that person or by a mercantile agent acting for him of the goods or documents of title under any sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof or under any agreement for sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof to any person receiving the same in good faith and without notice of any lien or other right of the original seller in respect of the goods, shall have the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transfer were a mercantile agent in possession of the goods or documents of title with the consent of the owner.

Question 45

newton case?

Answer 45

Newtons of Wembley Ltd v. Williams [1965] 1 QB 560 (CA) - trying to avoid contact

N sold a car to A who paid with a bad cheque. N could not trace A but did notify the Hire Purchase Information Bureau. The next month A sold the car to B who sold it to the defendant, who bought it in good faith.
C/A HELD: N had avoided the contract with A before A sold car to B. BUT sale by A to B fell under s.25(1) SGA, so W obtained good title to the car.

cordwell avoided orignanl owner got it back but buyer falls under s.25 so 3rd party could obtain goods of car

Question 46

key point? to excpetiosn of nemo dat

Answer 46

even thouh contract been resided 25- have good etc 3rd party had good faith beleiving = good title so it is exception to nemo dat rule too. - use this than cordwell us cordwell to how to avoid but even if avoid go back to s.25

Question 47

essay q?

Answer 47

it is true they can contradict eachother etc, consider things and disreagrd if need to

Question 48

next exception?

Answer 48

Sale by a seller in possession
- seller has sold goods to buyer but retain title of goods e.g i go john lewis, pay sofa but i need to collect or delvier, so stays in john and someone comes along and buy- sold to 2nd -good faitht dont know 1st buyer at all but s.24 exception means can get good title to goods

Question 49

sale by seller in poss? acts?

Answer 49

S.8 FA 1889/ s.24 SGA 1979:
Where a person having sold goods continues or is in possession of the goods or of the documents of title to the goods the delivery or transfer by that person or by a mercantile agent acting for him of the goods or documents of title under any sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof or under any agreement for sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof to any person receiving the same in good faith and without notice of the previous sale shall have the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transfer were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same.

Question 50

oldest exception?

Answer 50

(Sale in market overt)
Oldest of the exceptions to the nemo dat rule, created by a case in 1595;
- if goods sold in market overt, then person buying goods will get good title even if person selling doesn’t e.g if crook sold goods , crooks wouldnt sell daylight in strict market - open pub sunrise sunset- historical and incosistent only applied england no scotland wales and only applied to horses

Question 51

s.22 ?

Answer 51

S.22 SGA: if goods sold in open, public, legally constituted market between hours of sunrise and sunset;
- candle sticker stolen, buyer buy open , look at time was it before sunrise therefore exception couldnt apply= unfairness clearly out of date in modern world

Question 52

when was it abol?

Answer 52

Abolished by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994, for contracts made after 3 January 1995.

Question 53

next excep?

Answer 53

Sale of a motor vehicle on hire purchase

Question 54

what is meant by next?

Answer 54

Part III Hire Purchase Act 1964
S.27 broadly provides that a private purchaser of a motor vehicle from a person in possession under a hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement obtains title to the vehicle.
ONLY applies to motor vehicles.- limited and why?

Question 55

key requirements for this one?

Answer 55

Needs to be a ‘motor vehicle’;- not baots etc , cars etc
Seller must be in possession either as hirer under H-P agreement, or purchaser under conditional sales agreement (Shogun Finance v. Hudson [2003] 1 AC 919;- rogue posses of v but fraud company agreemnt - void cos hadnt contract face to face bc purchase werent void - couldnt obrain good title - need hire purachse agreement but inval meant inncoent purchaser lost out
There must be a ‘disposition’;-usallt ale or condiciton of sale in return of money
Only applies to the first private purchaser who buys the vehicle in good faith;
Who is a private purchaser?- not talking about anyone whi motore dealer has to be for own use and not finance company either
First private purchaser only.- so if 1st private pruch buys car and no hire purchase and sell to anotehr then wouldnt apply, 1st hvr o act in good faith, if chain good faith - x for rest

Question 56

what could overall nemo dat rule

Answer 56

Special powers of sale
S.21(2)(b) SGA 1979:
Nothing in this Act affects… the validity of any contract of sale under any special common law or statutory power of sale or under the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Covers variety of situations in which non-owner may legally pass good title to a buyer.
- e.g court order sell goods if ceased by bailfic police sold on- legall right, if pawn and dont buy back can sell on even though not orig owner= othe rexcep to nemo dat rule