98393
Description
Flashcards by kwhelanmail, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by kwhelanmail
over 11 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Which 1919 KINGS BENCH case is authority for implied assent? | Pignatoro v Gilroy 1919 KB: D sent letter to P saying that he could take delivery of goods at two addresses; P never replied and goods stolen; at P's risk as held as if he had replied assenting |
| Which 1827 case is the authority for subsequent assent? | Rhode v Thwaits 1827: B ordered 20 hogshead of sugar out of bulk. Heads filled and notified B to collect; B promises to do so; property passed at moment of subsequent assent |
| Which two cases are authority for the assertion that if B has previously assented to an appropriation, property will pass ON that appropriation? | 1) Aldridge v Johnson 1857 KB: bags sent by B for wheat 2) Langton v Higgins; peppermint oil; bottles sent by B;S sold to someone else but all property had already passed to B when bottles filled |
| What are the facts and groups of claimants in Re London Wine 1986? | S had unascertained wine in warehouses; issued paying customers with cert of ownership; paid insurance and storage charge; 1) 1 customer bought whole stock of wine; 2) 1+ customer bought whole stock of wine 3) customer bought some of total stock; pledged to finance co and had acknowledgement from warehouse man HELD; no property passed; no obligation to supply from that stock and no ascertainment *NB: would be decided the same today as no specified bulk under s.20A! |
| Re Wait 1927 COURT OF APPEAL: facts and outcome | W bought 1,000 T wheat loaded onto the Challenger. He then contracted to sell 500 to X. Was shipped undivided + bills of lading issued. W bankrupt; his trustee claimed all. CA HELD: no sufficient appropriation *NB: would be decided differently today due to s.20A! |
| Re Goldcorp Exchange 1994 Privy Council NZ: facts and outcome? | Similar facts to Re Wine: only group (3) who had purchased their wine from W prior to merging with GC were protected, even though wine was subsequently mixed. Their SHARED INTEREST could be traced but their recoveries could NOT exceed balance of GC. Collateral promises meant nothing. *NB: would still be decided same today despite s.20A! |
| Which 1994 CHANCERY DIVISION decision did Sealy describe as 'generous'? | Re Stapylton Fletcher 1994 CD: the separation of wine for paid customers from non-traded stock in a bonded warehouse was ok - even though not appropriated to each individual customer!Property passed with COMMON INTENTION (Re London Wine distinguished - Carlos Federspeil distinguished). Mixing post property passing is ok. Whereas in CARLOS only the following was ok: (1) Where an individual case of wine had a specific customer's reference on it and the allocation tallied with the company's records of wine ordered and paid for. (2) Where a stack of cases had a label showing the cases as belonging to one individual. (3) Where the records show that other cases in a stack have already been removed leaving a number of cases which exactly tally with a remaining individual's order. This is appropriation by exhaustion. (4) In the Octavian bond, where the faxed inventory showed one or more cases earmarked for a specific customer and bearing a single rotation number. |
| Which 2003 COURT OF APPEAL decision is one of the latest authorities on appropriation of unascertained goods? | Everwine 2003 CA: wine stored in bonded warehouse accoring to type; given rotation no. When sold, no segregating, but stock list updated and release notes created. (1) Where a release not did NOT cover ALL of the remainder of stock under a certain rotation no. the goods were still unascertained, (2)where release note DID cover ALL remaining stock of an alc type under a release note there was ascertainment (3) where some of bought stock for a certain buyer were transfered to other warehouses, the remainder to be transfered under that release note were ascertained |
| Now we have s.20A, what role does the definition of goods under s.61 play? | It includes 'an undivided share' which is what buyers of unascertained goods in an identified bulk receive |
| Any transfer to a third party carried out by a buyer who has an undivided share in unascertained goods will be? | A sale of specific goods - not a assignment of rights |
| Which COURT OF APPEAL case is authority for express intention under s.17 as to property transfer? | Re Blyth Ship Building CA: B who agreed to buy ship to be made agreed that property would transfer upon first payment installment |
| Which CHANCERY DIVISION decision is authority for implied intention under s.17 as to property transfer? | Re Anchor Line CD: A term included in a contract for a crane specified that a term expressly placing risk on B meant that property was to stay with S (given that otherwise no need to say as they pass together) |
| Name four key reasons why the passing of property matters | 1) Risk c property 2) S can sue for price post-property 3) B will have good title if S insolvent 4) Determines who can sue 3rd party |
| What are quasi-specific goods? | Unascertained goods from an identified source |
| What does s.17 SOGA stipulate? | That parties intentions are paramount; need to look at contract, conduct and circumstances |
| When will you turn to consider the rules in s.18? | When the intentions of the parties as to the passing of property is not clear |
| Name another QUEENS BENCH decision regarding deliverable state | Phillips Head v Showfronts QB: carpet rolled up in porch of buyers; not in deliverable state and so when stolen at risk of S |
| What are the two examples given by section 18(2) and (3) of unconditional appropriation by S? | (2) Where s delivers to B or carrier; (3)bulk is reduced (exhaustion) |
| Which 1917 KINGS BENCH case is the authority for delivery to a carrier for B and can be distinguished from Sterns v Vickers 1923 CA? | Healy v Howlett & Sons 1917 KB: D ordered 20 boxes fish from P; P dispatched to railway and ordered RR men to earmark; train delayed; by time of earmarkinf fish rotted; still at sellers risk because no ascertainment or delivery warrant - more left to do on part of S |
| Which classic 1926 KINGS BENCH case is the authority for ascertainment by exhaustion? | Wait & James v Midland Bank KB 1926:W&J owned consignment of wheat on the Challenger - all B's took delivery except R; R got good title against the bank via ascertainment by exhaustion |
| Which 1981 QUEENS BENCH case is a further authority on ascertainment by exhaustion? | Karlshams v Eastport (the Elafi) QB 1981: P's bought 600 cobra. 1,600 undivided on ship belonging to P and other B's. F bought the small surplus remaining and transfered to P. Ship docked and offloaded all apart from P's two consignments; ascertainment by exhaustion |
| Which judge in which 1957 QUEENS BENCH case states what is required in terms of unconditional appropriation? | Lord Pearson in Carlos Federspiel v Charles Twigg 1957 QB:S manufactured bicycles to B's order and placed them packed with others on ship with B's name and address. S insolvent - no property passes; "the element of common intention always has to be borne in mind; merely setting aside is not enough - seller can still change his mind; there must be an INTENTION TO ATTACH IRREVOCABLY. Appropriation is the LAST ACT" |
| Name the 1808 case which further highlights that appropriation must be last act | Mucklow v Mangles 1808: S making ship for B, paints name on stern, seized, no property had passed |
| Name three key cases (QB; CA and KB respectively) in which successful appropriation occured | 1) Hendy Lennox v Graham Puttick QB 1984: generators; deliverable state; B's received invoices & delivery notes with serial no's identifying goods; no more left to do 2) Wardars v Norwood & Sons 1968 CA: where goods with 3rd party, uncond. app when set aside for delivery to B with deliv. orders 3) Aldridge v Johnson 1857 KB: B agreed to buy 100/200 barley which he inspected; sent bags; when bags filled property passed |
| Which 1915 KINGS BENCH case is authority for conditional appropriation under s.19(1) SOGA | Re Shipton Anderson 1915 KB: S sold parcel of wheat in warehouse on terms "payment in cash in 7 days"; goods seized before payment; no property had passed to B due to S's reserved right of disposal |
| Which COURT OF APPEAL case discusses deliverable State? | Underwood v Burgh Castle COURT OF APPEAL: machine complete but cemented to floor |
| S.18(2) and (3): conditional sale of specific goods: property wont pass til put in deliverable state or weighed/measured by SELLER. Which PRIVY COUNCIL case explores this? | Nanka Bruce v Common Wealth Trust PRIVY COUNCIL: weighing to be done by B to make price accurate, property already passed |
| S.18(4): approval/notice: property passes when approval notified or no notice post expiration/post reasonable time? Two cases? | Pools v Smiths Car Sales: B's employees defaulted to return: property to B BUT... Re Ferrier 1944 CHANCERY: not applicable if goods detained by sb B not responsible for (creditors) |
| Which KINGS BENCH case is authority for s.16: no property in unascertained goods? | Kursell v Timber Operators 1927 KINGS BENCH: latvian forest: gov takes; no property to B as unascertained |
| Which KINGS BENCH case sees the effect of s.18(1): unconditional contract for specific goods - property passes when contract made? | Dennant v Skinner 1948 KINGS BENCH: p at fall of hammer despite subsequent title retention til cheque cleared |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.