Goods Flashcards
Wilson v New Bridgton Panel Beaters
TRESPASS
Wilsons car was parked in his driveway. Walters called NBPB saying the car was broken down and to pick the car up and drop it to his address.
Held that NBPB liable for trespass against Wilson regardless of acting innocently because they did not know that Walters had no right to the car.
Successful because Wilson was in possession of the car as it was parked at his property, the act of NBPB taking the car was an intentional act (they didn’t accidentally take the car) and the act of removing the car was unlawful because did not have Wilsons consent to remove his car.
Thurston v Charles
TRESPASS
Hospital Letter case
Established that you can get damages in trespass without suffering any loss = vindicatory damages.
Hollins v Fowler
CONVERSION
Fowler the owner of cotton bales sold them to a fraudulent agent who then sold them to Hollins an agent for Micholls the final party in possession of the cotton bales. Fowler sued Hollins in conversion.
Hollins was liable for conversion because Fowler maintained RTIP by virtue of nemo dat, Hollins intentionally took possession and transferred the bales and the sale and delivery was inconsistent with Fowlers RTIP.
Held that sale and delivery is always conversion.
Held that there is no conversion if finder removes goods to a place of security.
Held that conversion cares about intention to do the act not intention to do wrong - therefore innocence is no defence. Hollins was an innocent deliverer but still liable.
Held that refusal to give back goods is inconsistent with owners rights - therefore demand and refusal can be both conversion and detinue and you would pursue dependant on what time of damages is more beneficial.
Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways
CONVERSION
Upon gaining sovereignty over Kuwait, Iraq (IAC) took 10 commercial aircrafts that belonged to Kuwait airways (KAC). IAC rebranded, registered, insured and used the planes.
IAC liable for conversion as KAC had RTIP (due demo dat exception), the acts done to and use of the planes was inconsistent with KAC rights. The actions showed an intent to keep, treat and use the planes as their own.
“Temporality is not determinative” - you do not need to have intention to permanently deprive the owners rights.
McKeown v Cavalier Yachts
DETINUE
Defendant converts plaintiffs hull into a function yacht and both claim they own it.
Held that M owns the yacht despite doctrine of accession because the additions to the hull were very gradual such that were taken as all minor individual developments. Therefore M has RTIP.
C liable for detinue because M had RTIP and C therefore wrongfully refused to return M property.
M successfully granted restoration due to the yachts special and unique value.
Silsbury v McCoon
INNOCENT IMPROVER
Defendant owned corn which the plaintiff, without authority, manufactured into whisky with knowledge that it was the defendants.
Held that the owner of the corn owns the whisky. Innocent improver defence was not available because had knowledge that the corn did not belong to him.
When goods are gained by theft/trespass and wrongdoer enhances the value of the good then the manufactured good still belongs to the original owner.
Conway v Cockram Motors
BAILOR DOC
BMW car was left unlocked with keys inside showroom of car dealership and stolen.
Held that this was a breach of contract by Cockram Motors. They could not prove absence of causation or that they took reasonable care as they had no alarm system and insufficient security of just one padlocked door.
The risk of theft was foreseeable and therefore reasonable that care should have been taken against avoiding people breaking in and stealing. Held that duty of care is based on particular facts.
Held that compliance with industry standards is not enough.
Skyway Service Station v McDonald
BAILOR DOC
Appellant has a section near Auckland Airport where he stores travellers vehicles whilst they are away for a small fee. Plaintiffs car was stolen.
Held this was a breach of bailment because Skyway did not take reasonable care as there were no fences or adequate security.
Case shows how DOC can be limited - because M delivered car to Skyway premises (in daylight) he should have been aware of the storage conditions. There was no discussions about the security arrangements or level of care vehicle would have. Therefore, it can be presumed that M accepted the arrangements as a reasonable bailor would take note of the arrangement.
Continuing arrangements can also limit bailee’s liability but here M had never used Skyway before.
When paying a fee you are entitled to except a higher degree of reasonable care.
Southland Hospital Board v Perkins Estate
BAILOR DOC
Trustees of Mrs. Perkins estate sue Hospital board for the value of a lost diamond ring that she was wearing in the hospital at the time of her death. 6 days after she died the Hospital Board searched her belongings.
Hospital had a bylaw limited liability for loss or damage to the property of patients.
Held that the board was nevertheless liable because they became a gratuitous bailee upon owners death.
Held that finder have no duty of care until they make a positive act to bring the good into their possession - hospital is different to a finder.
Held that the board did not take reasonable care as next of kin was not notified soon enough and the 6 days was a long time before sorting deceased goods.
Bylaw cannot be construed to apply to a dead patient - contra proferentem applied.
Morris v CW Martin & Sons
SUB-BAILMENT
Morris the owner of a mink stole had a bailment relationship with furriers who then sub-bailed with the owners consent to Martin a specialist cleaner. Whilst in the custody of Martin the stole is stolen.
Held that there was a third party bailment relationship between Morris and Martin because Martin voluntarily took into his custody the stole which he knew to be the property of the furriers customer (Morris).
Gilchrist v Sanderson
SUB-BAILMENT
Took clocks from shipping company knowing they belonged to somebody in order to hand them to someone else.
Held there is a third party bailment relationship upholding Martin v Morris.
Held that you do not need to know the identity of the third party owner but just need to be aware that the owner is out there.
The Pioneer Container
SUB-BAILMENT
Plaintiffs entered into bailment with “carriers” to ship their goods. The carriers made a sub-bailment to the shipowner of the Pioneer Container, the ship sank and the goods were lost. The plaintiffs are suing the Pioneer Container for breach of bailment.
Held there is a third bailment relationship because Pioneer knew that the carriers were not the owners of the goods.
Held that the contractile terms between the head-bailment authorised the sub-bailment on “any terms” and therefore the jurisdiction clause applies.
The terms of the third party bailment is dependant on what the head bailer authorised.
HSBC Rail v Network Rail
DAMAGE TO REVERSION
HSBC leased out railway rolling stock to GNER (bailment relationship) for an 8 year contract. Five years into contract five of GNER trains were derailed: two damaged beyond repair worth 1.4 m euros and other 3.8 mil euros in repairs. Insurance company paid HSBC for loss.
Held that HSBC cannot claim for damage to the reversionary interest because there was no loss as they got back everything they were entitled to at the end of the lease period.
Held there must be damage at the end of the lease period in order to claim under damage to the reversion.
Isaac v Unpaid Farmers
PROPERTY PASSING
Defendants are a slaughtering and meat processing company that went into liquidation. At the time of liquidation Weddel was in possession of some carcasses and processed meat.
Held that property has passed to Isaac so defendants unsuccessful.
Property was passed from the slaughter stage onwards because the farmers no longer exercise any rights of ownership because Weddle was then able to sell the meat.
Oldfields Asphalts v Grove Dale Cool stores
PERISHED GOODS
Fire very badly damaged the freezer.
Held “goods are perished when they become so altered in nature so that they become for business purpose no longer what they were classified as”.
“Repairability alone is not determinative” - anything is fixable but you have to weight up if it is economical and if the repairs would result in a changed nature of the property.
The shed was so badly burnt that even if you were to redo it, it would never be of the same character.
