17.05.2014 Views

Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

8. European Conflict Rules for the Mutual Recognition of Security Rights <strong>in</strong> Goods<br />

8.2.3. Foreign retentions of title recognized –<br />

unless resale is allowed<br />

a) Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple and exception<br />

Denmark and Sweden generally recognize foreign retentions of title. 32<br />

However, an exception to this rule is made if the Danish or Swedish buyer<br />

is a merchant and is entitled, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the terms of the contract of<br />

sale, to dispose of the goods bought <strong>in</strong> favour of a sub-buyer. 33 Economically,<br />

the exception alluded to <strong>in</strong> the title of this section is very important,<br />

s<strong>in</strong>ce it has a broad field of application. In effect, it voids retention of title<br />

clauses <strong>in</strong> sales to merchants resell<strong>in</strong>g to other merchants. The effect of<br />

these clauses is limited to sales to producers and to merchants resell<strong>in</strong>g<br />

to consumers.<br />

b) Conclusion<br />

Is the Scand<strong>in</strong>avian exception compatible with the European obligation<br />

of mutual recognition of retentions of title? In my view it is. Recognition<br />

of security rights <strong>in</strong> the field of corporeal movables does not mean<br />

that retentions of title must be accorded the full effects of the security<br />

right that they may enjoy <strong>in</strong> the country of exportation. The effect of<br />

recogniz<strong>in</strong>g retentions of title must be limited to the effect that a cor-<br />

32<br />

Denmark: English seller’s retention of title <strong>in</strong> mach<strong>in</strong>e to be used <strong>in</strong> Danish<br />

buyer’s enterprise recognized: S.Ct. 3 November 1983, UfR 1984 A 8. In<br />

Sweden, no directly relevant case has been found. However, already <strong>in</strong> 1932<br />

a German seller’s retention of title was recognized <strong>in</strong> the Swedish buyer’s<br />

bankruptcy: S.Ct. 27 April 1932, NJA 1932 I no. 84.<br />

33<br />

Denmark: S.Ct. 8 February 1983, UfR 1983 A 311; Vestre Landsret 31 January<br />

1992, UfR 1992 A 373; Østre Landsret (ØL) 6 April 1998, UfR 1998<br />

A 1073. If the asset sold by a German seller but not paid for by the Danish<br />

buyer is retaken by the German seller with the consent of the Danish buyer<br />

shortly before the latter’s bankruptcy, the buyer is entitled to reclaim the purchase<br />

price from the German seller: S.Ct. 21 August 1987, UfR 1987 A 766.<br />

Sweden: In the bankruptcy of the Swedish buyer, the German seller, despite<br />

a reservation of ownership clause, was not allowed to reclaim the sold but<br />

unpaid-for mach<strong>in</strong>es from the buyer’s bankruptcy estate: S.Ct. 31 October<br />

1978, NJA 1978 no. 114.<br />

Ulrich Drobnig<br />

175<br />

© sellier. european law publishers<br />

www.sellier.de

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!