Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi Guys I have a problem question for commercial law which has really confused me, any help would be appreciated

    Tom paid for the for a vase in a antique shop, but asked if it was okay to return later to collect it and the seller agreed, but mistakenly resells it.
    The next part of the scenario basically states that it turns out the vase was sold to a fraudster, who initially disappeared but is later found but has already sold the vase at a market stall to Sarah who bought it in good faith.

    Advice all parties



    I'm really confused as to whether the Title moved to Tom, and so the antique store owner has no authority to sell under (s21 SGA 1979), so Tom can claim the vase. Or if Toms actions actually fall under s20 (delay of delivery caused by the buyers fault) and therefore the goods were left on the Tom's risk.

    I am completely lost; if someone could point me in the right direction I would be forever grateful!!!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matts92)
    Hi Guys I have a problem question for commercial law which has really confused me, any help would be appreciated

    Tom paid for the for a vase in a antique shop, but asked if it was okay to return later to collect it and the seller agreed, but mistakenly resells it.
    The next part of the scenario basically states that it turns out the vase was sold to a fraudster, who initially disappeared but is later found but has already sold the vase at a market stall to Sarah who bought it in good faith.

    Advice all parties



    I'm really confused as to whether the Title moved to Tom, and so the antique store owner has no authority to sell under (s21 SGA 1979), so Tom can claim the vase. Or if Toms actions actually fall under s20 (delay of delivery caused by the buyers fault) and therefore the goods were left on the Tom's risk.

    I am completely lost; if someone could point me in the right direction I would be forever grateful!!!
    I think you're on the wrong track thinking about delay and risk. You should be looking at the ability to pass title. The question is about the nemo dat rule.

    Look at Factors Act s. 8 (seller remaining in possession). If A has a voidable title, can he convey a non-voidable title to B? You might also want to look at the Universal Finance case ([1965] 1 QB 525), and the mistake of identity cases. Consider also Factors Act s.9 (buyer in possession).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its started to make a lot more sense now, thank you!!!!

    Can I just ask in terms of remedies, if the fraudster's title was voidable it would mean Sarah received a good title and therefore the vase belongs to her. Am I correct in thinking Tom could therefore sue the antiques dealer for non delivery? And also what could the antique dealer do, is suing for fraud her only choice?

    and once again thanks for your help!!!!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2014
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.