Sales 2 Flashcards Preview

Commercial Law > Sales 2 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Sales 2 Deck (56)
Loading flashcards...

what are we looking at today?

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


1st thing?

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


what is property and title referring to?

different aspects of ownership of the contract goods;


what is the property referring to here

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


what are talking about today?

(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


what is the key rule governing this sit?

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


what is this rule contained in

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


what is said in that act?

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.


e.g of nemo?

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


exceptions of rule?

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


what are gonna look out?



what is a typical essay q?

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


what is the 1st exception?

-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


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

more than just giving some1 possesion


when does s.21 only apply?

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.


ca held for shaw?

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.


what if it is a case where goods sold?

estoppel might arise in 2 ways:
-representation/ negligence


what is meant by estopp by repres?

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


case for estop rep?

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.


what is the next case about?

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


what is the next case?

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.



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.


what is estop by neg case?

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.


held for mercantile?

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


next exception is?

Sale by a mercantile agent


what about merch angets?

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


s.21 (2)?

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


what happens if you are a merch a?

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


what is the 2nd req of merch a?

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.


case for no.2?

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