Ascertainment and unconditional appropriation (principles of personal property)

Watch
ecks
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
1. What is the difference and relationship between ascertainment and unconditional appropriation?

From what I've read, it seems that ascertainment is the process of ascertaining unascertained goods. It can be achieved by a seller's conscious act of earmarking unascertained goods to particular contracts, by exhaustion (rule 5(3) s. 18 SOGA 1979), or by unconditional appropriation (rule 5 (1) and (2)) which can be used when there is no factual ascertainment by earmarking or exhaustion. Therefore, unconditional appropriation is one of the means to establish ascertainment in order for property to pass, and it is more of an automatic process that is operated by law rather than by facts/parties' intention.

2. What is needed to establish unconditional appropriation?

Rule 5(1) and (2) have each set out several requirements, on the other hand, it was held in Carlos Federspiel & Co SA [1957] that "the parties must have had, or be reasonably supposed to have had, an intention to attach the contract irrevocably to those goods" for unconditional appropriation to arise. Which is the correct test?

Thank you very much for your help
0
reply
LawDisciple
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
1. Property will pass when goods are ascertained.

2. Ascertainment will only take place when there is unconditional appropriation.

3. Unconditional appropriation is presumed in s18 rule 5(1)(2)(3)

4. Case of Carlos Federspeel is a case that interprets s18 rule 5(1). That case sets out certain key principles and it does not conflict with the section but rather helps one understand how the section works.

You do show a reasonable grasp on the difficult area of law on this. :
0
reply
ecks
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
I get it now, thank you so much!!!

(Original post by LawDisciple)
1. Property will pass when goods are ascertained.

2. Ascertainment will only take place when there is unconditional appropriation.

3. Unconditional appropriation is presumed in s18 rule 5(1)(2)(3)

4. Case of Carlos Federspeel is a case that interprets s18 rule 5(1). That case sets out certain key principles and it does not conflict with the section but rather helps one understand how the section works.

You do show a reasonable grasp on the difficult area of law on this. :
0
reply
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

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (99)
28.29%
No - I have already returned home (45)
12.86%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (68)
19.43%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (37)
10.57%
No - I live at home during term anyway (101)
28.86%

Watched Threads

View All