Can future goods ever become specific goods?

Watch
beckie :)
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#1
Based on Atiyah's statement, No...future goods can never be specific for the purposes of the act

So e.g. in an exam question would the goods be considered to be unascertained? and so proceed to s.16 etc to assess whether property/risk has passed?


Or would you proceed with answering in the sense that they are specific and future goods? and so straight so s.17 to assess whether property/risk has passed?
1
reply
Advertisement
The_Goose
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 10 years ago
#2
(Original post by beckie :))
Based on Atiyah's statement, No...future goods can never be specific for the purposes of the act

So e.g. in an exam question would the goods be considered to be unascertained? and so proceed to s.16 etc to assess whether property/risk has passed?


Or would you proceed with answering in the sense that they are specific and future goods? and so straight so s.17 to assess whether property/risk has passed?
future goods are always unascertained. They never become specific - they become ascertained for the purposes of s,16 and s.18 rule 5
0
reply
beckie :)
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#3
(Original post by The_Goose)
future goods are always unascertained. They never become specific - they become ascertained for the purposes of s,16 and s.18 rule 5
Thanks!
0
reply
Advertisement
kerri502
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
Future goods can also be specific i.e. There is an heirloom necklace in your family, it's passed from generation to generation. You know it will be your property eventually, but it's not unascertained - it's identified and agreed upon, there is only one.

Sale of future goods is an agreement to sell. Sale of specific goods is a sale of goods and covered by SGA.
0
reply
The_Goose
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 10 years ago
#5
(Original post by kerri502)
Future goods can also be specific i.e. There is an heirloom necklace in your family, it's passed from generation to generation. You know it will be your property eventually, but it's not unascertained - it's identified and agreed upon, there is only one.

Sale of future goods is an agreement to sell. Sale of specific goods is a sale of goods and covered by SGA.
No they can't. The necklace you describe already exists, so it isn't future goods. Future goods are thing that aren't made yet, or having been altered etc. Future goods are usually things that have to be made (wedding dresses, etc)

Things not yet in existence are future goods, which can never be specific.
0
reply
Advertisement
Brianne
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 10 years ago
#6
i thought future goods are those that are:
1. non-existence or
2. existing but yet to be acquired by seller

also, when dealing with transfer of property/risk in relation to specific goods that are also future goods - i.e. existing but yet to be acquired by seller - then why do we ignore s18 r1 and instead treat it as an agreement to sell?
why do we treat future goods as unascertained when they are specific?
0
reply
The_Goose
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 10 years ago
#7
(Original post by Brianne)
i thought future goods are those that are:
1. non-existence or
2. existing but yet to be acquired by seller

also, when dealing with transfer of property/risk in relation to specific goods that are also future goods - i.e. existing but yet to be acquired by seller - then why do we ignore s18 r1 and instead treat it as an agreement to sell?
why do we treat future goods as unascertained when they are specific?
such things do not exist. Future goods are always unascertained.
0
reply
Advertisement
kerri502
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 10 years ago
#8
Future goods are defined in my textbook as: "1) Goods to be manufactured by the seller. 2) Goods to be aqcuired by the seller [by purchase, gift, succession or otherwise], goods not yet in existence [e.g. lambs to e born]. 3) Things which do exist, but are not yet 'goods' [e.g. minerals not yet extracted but still forming part of the seller's land]. Also defined in s.5(1) SGA.

Future goods are treated as agreements to sell as under s.5(3) SGA they have to become existing goods for property to pass, which means they must be in possession of the seller. s18 rule 1 says that property passes in an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods that are in a deliverable state as soon as the contract is made. But if a company contracts with a supplier for goods and they are sent by courier (payment on delivery), and company then sells those particular goods in an unconditional contract to a buyer before they are delivered to him - technically if the goods are in transit they are in a deliverable state. BUT company can't pass property to the buyer as he doesn't yet have it. If s18 rule 1 applied the buyer would get property and risk before the company even had property, which doesn't make sense.

Future goods aren't treated as unascertained goods, as soon as they become existing goods the normal rules for specific goods then apply, they just have to become existing goods first.

(This is what I can make out from my notes anyways =] )
1
reply
The_Goose
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 10 years ago
#9
(Original post by Brianne)
i thought future goods are those that are:
1. non-existence or
2. existing but yet to be acquired by seller

also, when dealing with transfer of property/risk in relation to specific goods that are also future goods - i.e. existing but yet to be acquired by seller - then why do we ignore s18 r1 and instead treat it as an agreement to sell?
why do we treat future goods as unascertained when they are specific?

(Original post by kerri502)
Future goods are defined in my textbook as: "1) Goods to be manufactured by the seller. 2) Goods to be aqcuired by the seller [by purchase, gift, succession or otherwise], goods not yet in existence [e.g. lambs to e born]. 3) Things which do exist, but are not yet 'goods' [e.g. minerals not yet extracted but still forming part of the seller's land]. Also defined in s.5(1) SGA.

Future goods are treated as agreements to sell as under s.5(3) SGA they have to become existing goods for property to pass, which means they must be in possession of the seller. s18 rule 1 says that property passes when they're in a deliverable state. But if a company contracts with a supplier for goods and they are sent by courier (payment on delivery), and company then contracts to sell those specific ones ordered to a buyer before they are delivered to him - technically if the goods are in transit they are in a deliverable state. BUT company can't pass property to the buyer as he doesn't yet have it. If s18 rule 1 applied the buyer would get property and risk before the company even had property, which doesn't make sense.

Future goods aren't treated as unascertained goods, as soon as they become existing goods the normal rules for specific goods then apply, they just have to become existing goods first.

(This is what I can make out from my notes anyways =] )
"Future goods include goods not yet in existence, and good in existence but not yet acquired by the seller. It is probably safe to say that future goods can never be specific goods for the purposes of the Act. This certainly seems to be true of those sections of the Act dealing with the passing of property.

Atiyah's Sale of Goods

Future goods are only treated as specific in the very limited area of frustration of contract. Perhaps is was wrong to say that they can never be specific, but they certainly shouldn't be treated as such for the OP's purposes.
0
reply
Advertisement
kerri502
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
Oh! My tutor said that following Atiyah's statement then if goods haven't become existing you treat them as just future goods rather than specific goods; that is, that property passes when they become existing. You can't treat goods that are technically specific and future goods as unascertained, because they're not unascertained.
0
reply
The_Goose
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 10 years ago
#11
(Original post by kerri502)
Oh! My tutor said that following Atiyah's statement then if goods haven't become existing you treat them as just future goods rather than specific goods; that is, that property passes when they become existing. You can't treat goods that are technically specific and future goods as unascertained, because they're not unascertained.
Not according to my tutor and Atiyah =P

You can't treat something existing but not acquired by the seller yet as specific goods because then property would pass under the default rule of at the time the contract is formed, which is can't physically do because the seller wouldn't have property to pass to the buyer at that time. That's why you treat them as unascertained, they they become ascertained when the seller has the property in the goods.
0
reply
Advertisement
kerri502
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 10 years ago
#12
haha i know not to treat them as specific goods for the purposes of the act, because applying those rules doesn't make sense, although they can be defined as specific. You treat them as future goods and use s.5(3) which says property will pass when they become existing, which is when the seller gets property in them. which is similar to unascertained goods becoming ascertained, but it's plain wrong to call goods that can be defined as both specific and future as unascertained, as unascertained goods can be easily replaced etc etc.
1
reply
Owl_power
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
The_Goose has got it right! Future goods can never be specific but for the purposes of frustration of the contract
0
reply
Advertisement
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

When did you submit your Ucas application if you applied to go to university this year?

September 2021 (29)
7.3%
October 2021 (179)
45.09%
November 2021 (42)
10.58%
December 2021 (53)
13.35%
January 2021 (44)
11.08%
I still haven't submitted it yet! (38)
9.57%
Something else (12)
3.02%

Watched Threads

View All