Transforma la forma en la que aprendes

Pregunta	Respuesta
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

Siguiente

Nemo Dat Case Law

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por kwhelanmail hace más de 11 años