98404
Description
Flashcards by kwhelanmail, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by kwhelanmail
over 11 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Name the QUEENS BENCH case which is a further authority in addition to Pearson v Rose & Young on consent + larcenry/trick | Du Jardin v Beadman 1952 QB: A gives bad cheque and Hillman as security to B who lets A take new car and log book. A sneaks back and takes Hillman. Ok for consent. |
| Which QUEENS BENCH 1985 decision states that B1 must have actual poss under s.9 OR that S can deliver goods to B2 direct? | Four-point garage 1985 QB |
| What does s.47(2)(a) state? | If S allows B1 to take docs of title and B1 transfers them to B2 by way of sale, the unpaid sellers lien will be defeated |
| Which 1960 QUEENS BENCH case evidences the effect of s.47(2)(a)? | Mount v Jay & Jay 1960 QB: S owns peaches in warehouse; allows B1 to have doc of title to collect; B1 acknowldges but doesnt collect; warehouseman gives B1 doc #2; who gives it to B2 who pays B1 for it - B2 wins under s.9 |
| What was the questionable feature of the QB decision in Mount v J & J? | B2 allowed good title even though peaches were technically unascertained (s.16 SOGA) |
| Which HOUSE OF LORDS case asserted that an innocent buyer will not receive good title if the owner had the goods stolen from him? | National Employers Mutual General Insurance v Jones 1990 HL: long line of buyers from thief, O retained good title against final B |
| Which HOUSE OF LORDS case asserted that an innocent buyer will not receive good title if the owner had the goods stolen from him? | National Employers Mutual General Insurance v Jones 1990 HL: long line of buyers from thief, O retained good title against final B |
| Which SCOTTISH case suggests that a disposition for the purposes of s.9 may include contracting to install /incorporate goods into a building (although not a sale)? | Archivent Sales v Strathclyde Regional Council (Scot) |
| Which QUEENS BENCH case notes that any 'delivery of transfer' for the purposes of s.9 needs to be voluntary? | Forsythe International (The Saetta) 1993 QB: petrol |
| Which judge in which 1965 COURT OF APPEAL case criticised the requirement of 'acting as an MA' under s.9? | Lord Pearson in Newtons of Wembley 1965 CA: "it appears on the face of it to be an impossible question" |
| Which sections of SOGA 1979 also constitute a real remedy for a seller? | s.48(2)(3)(4): when unpaid S excercises right of stoppage or his lien B2 will get good title; where goods are perishable OR B1 does not respond to notice, S can re-sell and obtain damages from B1 for breach of contract |
| Which section of SOGA dictates that a seller will loose his lien when B1 lawfull obtains poss of the goods? | Section 43 |
| Whose name must be on the HP Agreement for the purposes of section 111 of the 1964 Act? | Must be a true debtor and not a rogue (as in Shogun Finance v Hudson 2003 HL) |
| Which COURT OF APPEAL decision sets out exactly who can be a private purchaser for the purposes of part III of the HP Act 1964? | Stevenson v Beverly 1976 CA: B was buying for his own private purpose but he was in fact a motor dealer so could pass no title. PP is anyone OTHER than a motor dealer or a finance co. It is status and not capacity that matters. |
| Which COURT OF APPEAL decision sets out exactly who can be a private purchaser for the purposes of part III of the HP Act 1964? | Stevenson v Beverly 1976 CA: B was buying for his own private purpose but he was in fact a motor dealer so could pass no title. PP is anyone OTHER than a motor dealer or a finance co. It is status and not capacity that matters. |
| Where does 'from a person in possession under a HP' NOT apply? | Central Newbury Car Auctions v Unity Finance 1957 CA: will not apply when dealer allows rogue to take car before forms are agreed and cheque bounces |
| What is a 'disposition' for the purposes of Part III of the HP Act 1964? | Section 29(1): sale, contract of sale, letting under a HP agreement |
| Why does Iwan Davis feel that wrongful dispositions under HP agreements are too safe for imprudent buyers? | because only need actual notice |
| What is the classic 2010 COURT OF APPEAL case dealing with a disposition under a HP Agreement? | Kulkarni v Manor Credit 2010 CA: HP Co to Gwent to DK. Must have been disposed by Gwent during HP debtor. Whether property passed to DK before or during HP agreement. During (deliverable state - reg plates) - DK gets good title |
| Which 1983 COURT OF APPEAL DECISION states that there's no duty on the buyer to enquire as to the sellers right to dispose the goods? | Feuer Leather Corp v Johnston & Sons 1983 CA |
| Which are the relevant sections under SOGA and FA for buyer in possession? | S.9/s.25 |
| For s.9/s.25 - which CHANCERY DIVISION case is the only case in which the rogue's title was avoided but he was still able to pass title due to "bought or agreed to buy"? | Newtons of Wembley v Williams 1965 CA: title avoided but took car to sunday market and sold |
| Which CHANCERY DIVISION authority dictates whether ROT's can be included under "has bought or agreed to buy" for the purposes of s.9? | Re Highway Foods 1995 C.Div: A sold meat to B on ROT terms; B sold to C on same terms; ROT WILL DEFEAT WIDTH OF S.9 UNLESS B2 PAYS FULL PRICE TO B1 |
| Name the features of a conditional sale agreement which will mean that it wont come under "bought or agreed to buy" for the purposes of s.9 | a) if its a financial cond. sale agreement under s.8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 b) usually financial installments with option to buy at end |
| Which HOUSE OF LORDS case was merged with a COURT OF APPEAL case under s.8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974? | Helby v Matthews 1895 HL (bailment + option to buy) and Lee v Butler 1893 CA (conditional sale) |
| Name the COURT OF APPEAL case which contains a type of conditional sale agreement which would still be ok under s.9 'bought or agreed to buy'? | Marten v Whale 1917 CA: T agreed to buy car from M dependant on land transaction - borrowed - land never passed but T sold; B2 got good title |
| S.21(1) excludes agreements to sell | Shaw v Commissioner of Met Police 1987 COURT OF APPEAL |
| B's claim against Rogue S where ND applies? | Breach of innominate implied term s.12(1) SOGA 1979 |
| O's claim against B2 where ND applies? | (1) He may take goods; (2) He may bring an action in conversion under the Torts Interference with Goods Act 1977 SECTION 3: a)specific performance or b)O can choose between damages or specific performance allowing B to pay damages in lieu |
| Damages in conversion are equal to? | The value of the goods @ date of coversion. |
| What if B2 has improved goods and ND applies? | Torts Interference with Goods Act 1977 section 6 - court may make allowences for improvements made |
| What are the elements of Estoppel and which case are they laid out in? | Representation, Reliance on that rep, and detriment suffered - found in Rama Corp v Proved Tin QUEENS BENCH |
| Who sets out the "broad" principle of estoppel and in which case? | Justice Ashurst in Lickbarrow v Mason 1787 "where two IP's must suffer due to acts of 3rd, he who allowed them to occassion such loss must bare it..." |
| Name a case in which there was sufficient words/conduct to amount to an effective estoppel | Eastern Distributors v Goldring 1957 COURT OF APPEAL - B armed co. with signed forms |
| Name the case which holds that a log book is NOT a doc of title and is not enough therefore to create an estoppel | Central Newbury Car Auctions v Unity Finance 1957 COURT OF APPEAL |
| In which case was it held that mere possession is not enough to create an estoppel? | Mercantile Bank of India v Central Bank of India 1938 COURT OF APPEAL |
| In which case did estoppel by negligence fail because there's no duty to register HP interests | Moorgate Mercantile Company v Twitchings 1976 HOUSE OF LORDS |
| Where is the defintion of an MA? | Section 1 Factors Act 1889 |
| An MA may have two professions | Weiner v Harris 1910 COURT OF APPEAL (Fisher - J shop and travel country) |
| First-time MA's are fine; MA's must be independant, not a mere employee or servant | Lowther v Harris 1927 KINGS BENCH (wants to try hand;has own shop and cheque book;undersells) |
| Must be entrusted as an MA, not simply as friend | Budberg v Jerwood 1934: russian baroness escapes, entrusts lawyer friend with pearl necklace |
| Which cases consistute authority on the requirement that MA's must be 'in possession with the consent of the owner'? | Pearson v Rose & Young 1951 COURT OF APPEAL: O to 2nd hand motor dealer with view to sell; MD tricks O to leave quickly without log book; a) tricks to gain consent irrelevant, but b) consent must be in some way connected with business as MA; not case with log book here |
| Sale must be simultaneous with disposition for MA? | Beverly Acceptances v Oakley 1982 COURT OF APPEAL |
| Possession must be QUA MA | Staffs Motor Guarantee v British Wagon 1934 KINGS BENCH; H was MA who dealt in 2nd hand lorries, sold and took back on HP; sold to B2; no good title as not in poss QUA MA |
| Which judge in which case described 'sale in the ordinary course of business' for MA's? | Buckley J in Oppenheimer v Attenborough 1908 COURT OF APPEAL: "acting as an MA would act, within biz hours at a proper place of biz" |
| In which MA case did O manage to keep good title because their actions in relation to the goods negated the presumed consent under s.2(4) FA 1889? There was also no C of B. | Stadium Finance v Robbins 1962 COURT OF APPEAL (locking lg in glove compt. and keeping key) - not in C of B minus those things. |
| In which case did an irregular location constitute the 'ordinary course of business' for an MA? | Newtons of Wembley 1965 COURT OF APPEAL (road side sunday car market) |
| Which is the classic case for 'buyer in good faith without notice'? | Heap v Motorists Advisory Agency 1923 KINGS BENCH (car minus log book at huge discount, open cheque) |
| Name the two common features of a VOID contract | 1) Distance sale; 2) Mistake of Identity |
| Name the two common features of a VOIDABLE contract | 1) Face to face sale; 2) fraudulent misrepresentation |
| Name the first House of Lords decision on a VOID contract | Cundy v Lindsay 1878 HL: rogue ordered linen by post in name of local firm; no good title to B2 |
| Name the two decisions which appear to contradict eachother in terms of void/voidable - one KB and one CA | Phillips v Brooks 1919 KINGS BENCH: rogue in shop pretends to be a Lord following cheque; O lets R take ring; VOIDABLE Ingram v Little 1972 COURT OF APPEAL; sisters selling car; R offers cheque denied, R pretends to be a wealthy man, post office check, gives car; VOID; s.23 cannot apply |
| Name the KINGS BENCH auction case in which the contract as voidable (and property passed owing to...) | Dennant v Skinner 1948 KINGS BENCH |
| Name the classic COURT OF APPEAL case on voidable contracts | Lewis v Avery 1972 CA: Lord Denning: face-to-face always voidable; R pretends to be famous actor and O lets R take car; title not avoided; title passes to B2 |
| Name the landmark HOUSE OF LORDS case on void contracts; what were the different views of the lords and who proposed overall reform? | Shogun Finance v Hudson 2003 HL: R gets car on HP using false ID: the majority agreed that because finance co. wasn't present this was a distance sale and so VOID. a) Lord Nicholls and Lord Millet dissenting: agree with Denning; face to face and should've been void b) Lord Walker avoids ND altogether and calls it an 'offer and acceptance issue' c) Lord Hobhouse; "finance co only willing to do business with credited people...one of the GREAT STRENGTHS of Eng commercial law is finality" d) Lord Millet: we need to rationalise the law and put in on a good footing |
| In Shogun Finance 2003 HL, which judge cited which foreign codes as evidence to support his assertion that reforms to voidable title should be based on HE WHO BARES RISK | Lord Millet: UCC Article 4.2 and 932 German Civil Code: risk better born by he who gives up poss; |
| Which is the classic COURT OF APPEAL case setting out what you need to do to avoid title? | Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell 1965 CA: immeditately take all necessary steps |
| Which sections of SOGA and FA relate to Seller in Possession? | Article 8 FA and Article 24 SOGA |
| Which now overulled KINGS BENCH authority used to reign over "continues in possession or is in possession" for S in P? | Staffs Motor Guarantee 1934 KB: H was MA who dealt in lorries, sold and took back on HP; must be in poss QUA seller |
| Which AUSTRALIAN PRIVY COUNCIL case overulled Staffs Motor Guarantee with regard to a seller "continuing or is in possession"? | Pacific Motor Auctions v Manor Credits 1965 Priv.C AUS: motor deals sold cars to B but kept them on display ; paid 90% price and instructed to sell for B; instructions revoked but sold; good title passed because CONTINUOUS PHYS POSS is necessary |
| Which NEW ZEALAND PRIVY COUNCIL decision confirmed the physcial possession requirement laid out in the Australian case of Pacific Motors 1965? | Mitchell v Jones 1905 Priv.C NZ: S sold and delivered horse to B1, loaned back, sold to B2; NO good title as no continuous phys poss |
| Which COURT OF APPEAL case concerning dispositions was the first English case to confirm the 'continuous phys poss' requirement on sellers in possession? | Worcester Works Finance v Cooden Engineering 1972 CA |
| Which 1937 case asserted that goods at the sellers disposal (i.e. in a warehouse) are IN his possession for purposes of s.8/s.24? | City Fur Co. 1937 |
| Which now overulled CHANCERY DIVISION decision held that 'actual' delivery was required under the "delivery or transfer of goods element" in s.8/s.24? | Nicholson v Harper 1985 CH.Div: M owned wine in D warehouse; pledged 250 to P; M insolvent and pledged all to D; no title to D as no actual delivery |
| Which HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA decision overulled the requirement of 'actual' delivery under "delivery or transfer" for purposes of s.24/s.8? | Gamers Motor Centre v Natwest Wholesale Australia 1987 H.C.AUS:G sells car to D on ROT terms; D sells car to N and remains in possession; G unpaid and re-possesses car; N sues G; N gets good title because CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY OK |
| Which COURT OF APPEAL decision confirms the constructive delivery requirement for the purposes of s.24/s.8 set out in Gamers Austrlia? | Michael Gerson v Wilkinson 2000 CA: E to G on sale and leaseback; E to State on sale and leaseback; CLARK LJ; state gets title because constructive delivery ok |
| Which COURT OF APPEAL decision sets the scope of 'any sale pledge or disposition' under s.24/s.8 as being wide? | Worcester Works Finance 1972 CA: D sold car to G for cheque; cheque bounces and D re-collects with G's consent. Before this recollection, G had sold car to HP co. on understanding that they'd let car to G's friend M. G concealed fraud by making payments in M's name; M never took poss. Held: NO CONSENT REQUIRED FROM B1; COLLECTION = DISPOSITION |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.