Commercial Law: Sale of Goods - University of Wolverhampton

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GUARANTEESUnder the Regulations, guarantees are binding on the person providing them.The giving of a guarantee is optional, but if one is given it muststate that consumer’s rights under national law are unaffectedset out in ‘plain intelligible language’ the scope and the main terms of theguarantee.5. EFFECTS OF NEW S.48Millars of Falkirk v Turpie (1976) SLT 66Bernstein v Pamsons Motors (Golders Green) [1987] 2 ALL ER 220
Study Unit 5 Suggested minimum study hours: 15TopicTitle to Goods and Transfer of TitleThis Unit covers material contained in the Learning Project.IntroductionThe ultimate purpose of a contract for the sale of goods is to pass ownership of goods from theseller to the buyer. The general rule is that only a person with title can pass good title to anotherperson. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. In this Unit we look at these exceptions andat the rights of the buyer in the event of failure by the seller to transfer title.Objectivesa To discuss the policy behind the ‘nemo dat’ rule.b To examine the exceptions to the rule.c To consider the liability of a transferor lacking in title.Essential ReadingThese titles have been supplied as part of your study materials.Commercial Law Textbook – Relevant Chapter(s)Commercial Law 150 Leading Cases – (See listed cases)General ReadingThese titles have not been supplied and are not essential reading, butyou may wish to refer to them to further your understanding.The Sale of Goods, Atiyah – Relevant Chapter(s)Commercial Law, Bradgate – Relevant Chapter(s)Case law and statutesNEMO DAT QUOD NON HABETi The basic ruleSGA 1979: s21(1) ‘Subject to ... than the seller had.’ii EstoppelCentral Newbury Car Auctions Ltd v Unity Finance Ltd [1957] 1 QB 371Eastern Distributors Ltd v Goldring [1957] 2 QB 600* Farquharson Bros v King & Co Ltd [1902] AC 325Henderson & Co v Williams [1895] 1 QB 521Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Hamblin [1965] 2 QB 242Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1977] AC 890Shaw v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1987] 1 WLR 1332SGA 1979: s21(1)iii Mercantile agency* Astley Industrial Trust Ltd v Miller [1968] 2 All ER 36Oppenheimer v Attenborough & Son [1908] 1 KB 221Pearson v Rose & Young Ltd [1951] 1 KB 275Stadium Finance Ltd v Robbins [1962] 2 QB 664SGA 1979: s21(2)
Page 1 and 2: Distance Learning Module PlannerCom
Page 3 and 4: How to Use Your Module PlannerThe M
Page 5 and 6: Topics Covered by ModuleThis module
Page 7 and 8: A Brief Guide to Study SkillsAs a d
Page 9 and 10: Introduction to Study UnitsThe Stud
Page 11 and 12: Study Unit 1 Suggested minimum stud
Page 13 and 14: Self-Study Questions1 What is a con
Page 15 and 16: Wardar’s (Import and Export) Co L
Page 19 and 20: * Ruben (E & S) Ltd v Faire Bros Lt
Page 23 and 24: Sample Questions1 ‘Between them,
Page 25: When may the consumer demand rescis
Page 29 and 30: 1 Discuss whether s25 Sale of Goods
Page 31 and 32: SELLER’S EXCUSES FOR NON-DELIVERY
Page 35 and 36: Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 150SGA 1979: s19PE
Page 37 and 38: Learning Project for Sale of Goods:
Page 39 and 40: IMPLIED TERMS IN SUPPLY OF GOODS AN
Page 41 and 42: Suresh’s, Anna, who was visiting
Page 43 and 44: should have been discussed and appl
Page 45 and 46: have a power to sell goods but here
Page 47 and 48: RevisionWhat to reviseConsider care
Page 49 and 50: the exam. Then go back over your re
Page 51: Module QuestionnaireCommercial Law:

Commercial Law: Sale of Goods - University of Wolverhampton

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?