German law student needs some help

So...

I am a postgraduate law student in germany and I have to solve a case by english law.

I already got the general idea behind this but I lack the proper sources of law.

here is the case in short form:
- A sells a car to B with a ROT clause.
- Under unknown circumstances(i guess they want to say it's not stolen) the car shows up at C's shop
- D buys the car in C's shop and uses the car since then.
- B goes bankrupt without having paid A for his car
- D bought the car with good faith but without getting the V5C

So the question is: who is the owner of the car?

So from what i've learned so far:

- ROT clause is valid. Property does not transfer to B -> romalpa jugdement + SoG Act 1979 s. 19
- There is a possibility of a bona fide purchase. Requirements are met, i guess (Didn't find any quotable source of law. Just wikipedia and random websites)
- V5C is not a proof of ownership. ( No quotable source of law)

open questions: Can you purchase a car in good faith without getting the V5C? (In germany you can't)

thanks in advance for your help

feel free to ask me about german law

Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.

Reply 2

Tortious

16

Original post by ffjeden

So...

I am a postgraduate law student in germany and I have to solve a case by english law.

I already got the general idea behind this but I lack the proper sources of law.

here is the case in short form:
- A sells a car to B with a ROT clause.
- Under unknown circumstances(i guess they want to say it's not stolen) the car shows up at C's shop
- D buys the car in C's shop and uses the car since then.
- B goes bankrupt without having paid A for his car
- D bought the car with good faith but without getting the V5C

So the question is: who is the owner of the car?

So from what i've learned so far:

- ROT clause is valid. Property does not transfer to B -> romalpa jugdement + SoG Act 1979 s. 19
- There is a possibility of a bona fide purchase. Requirements are met, i guess (Didn't find any quotable source of law. Just wikipedia and random websites)
- V5C is not a proof of ownership. ( No quotable source of law)

open questions: Can you purchase a car in good faith without getting the V5C? (In germany you can't)

thanks in advance for your help

feel free to ask me about german law

I'm not entirely sure about the V5C since it was never mentioned when I studied this area of law at undergraduate level. However, arguably you could still be acting in good faith without getting the V5C, but having/not having it will be a relevant factor in deciding whether you were acting in good faith.

In terms of who owns the car, what you're talking about is the "nemo dat" rule and the exceptions to it. The "nemo dat" rule comes from an old saying: "nemo dat quod non habet", namely "you can't give 'good title' (usually ownership) if you don't have that title in the first place".

There's some information here which should act as a basic starting point, although I think it's getting a little old so the most recent cases aren't on there. Apologies that I can't be of more help; this area of law is quite "technical" and it's been a while since I've studied it, so I'd rather not send you off in the wrong direction!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3

ffjeden

OP

Thank you very much. You gave me a good starting point which contains a lot of references which will lead me the way.

Reply 4

ffjeden

OP

I've got another question. How do you determine the title in an exam? Do you look at the way from the orginal owner to the possibly newest(in this case A->B->C->D) and check whether the title passed or not or antichronologically(the other way around)?

Reply 5

Tortious

16

Original post by ffjeden

I've got another question. How do you determine the title in an exam? Do you look at the way from the orginal owner to the possibly newest(in this case A->B->C->D) and check whether the title passed or not or antichronologically(the other way around)?

Hi,

Just so you know, it's best to quote people when replying to them (click the little button with the quote marks (") on their post), otherwise they won't receive notification that you want a reply. :smile:

In terms of determining title, yes - I'd be inclined to look at the original owner first. Ideally there should be an unbroken chain of properly passed title, but you need to work methodically (from the start) to find any weaknesses.

For instance, let's say that property passed correctly from A->B, but not B->C or C->D. In that case, there are two "transfers" which might require you to look at exceptions to the nemo dat rule, and if none are applicable, property does not pass and instead remains with the last person who received it properly.

If you tried to start by looking at C->D and decided that there wasn't a proper transfer of title, your answer would become muddled because you wouldn't know who is the rightful owner of the property. It's B, as established above, but since you wouldn't have considered B at that stage you couldn't possibly know.

Does that make sense? :yy:

German law student needs some help

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you