1 / 17

Law of Tort

Law of Tort. Tutorial weeks 6-7 Question One Presented by: Joseph (50342303) Sing (50295647). Question One. Facts Issues Rules Applications Conclusion. Facts. B&C Co. Ltd ---- Car --  A ( hire-purchase) A --- $6000 monthly--  B&C Co. Ltd. (2 years)

kacy
Download Presentation

Law of Tort

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Law of Tort Tutorial weeks 6-7 Question One Presented by: Joseph (50342303) Sing(50295647)

  2. Question One • Facts • Issues • Rules • Applications • Conclusion

  3. Facts • B&C Co. Ltd ---- Car -- A (hire-purchase) • A --- $6000 monthly-- B&C Co. Ltd. (2 years) • A uses illegal method to make him become registered car owner • A -----car----D, an auctioneer • D-----car--X (public auction)

  4. Issues • Can B&C Co. Ltd. sue A, if so, what is the remedies available? • Can B&C Co. Ltd. sue D, if so, what is the remedies available? • Does X get the title of the car?

  5. Rules • Trespass to Chattels • Conversion • Sale of Goods Ordinance s24 • Principle of Jus Tertii

  6. Trespass to Chattels • unlawful interference with the possession of a chattel by P. • direct and intentional act • P have possession or a right to possession

  7. Conversion • intentional act • Someone’s act which is the owner can do only, and seriously inconsistent the possession of goods • D knows the goods do not belong to P or intention not to challenge P’s right is not relevant. • Note that: The difference between trespass to chattels and conversion is: Trespass: not serious interference (liable) Conversion: ONLY Serious interference (liable)

  8. Principle of Jus Tertii • Definition: D claims that he has a better title or is acting for 3rd party who has a better title. • P has possession of the chattel and D does not have a better title, D cannot plead jus tertii. • When P was not in possession of the chattel but relied on his right to possession, D can plead jus tertii.

  9. Cases • Penfolds Wine v Elliott (1947) 74 CLR 204 (supra) • R.H. Willis and Son v British Car Auctions Ltd (1978) • Leake v Loveday (1842) 4 Man & F 972

  10. Penfolds Wine v Elliott (1947) • P sold wines bottle with words “This bottle is the property of Penfolds Wine Ltd” • The bottles could not be used for storing any other product • D brought two empty bottles for own wine and sold • Held: D had committed conversion. • D used bottles for his own trade • D Violated the P’s title to use the bottle

  11. Applications: A’s Remedies • Trespass to chattel: intentionally and directly interference on the possession of the car • Conversion: • Achanged the ownership registration, gave the car to the D for disposal, A committed an act of conversion • Abreached the HP contract • HP contract was void and B&C Co. had the right to immediate possession • In the law of conversion, A gave the Car to D without the consent of B&C Co, will liable in conversion • A was liable the unpaid purchase price to BC Ltd.

  12. R.H. Willis and Son v British Car Auctions Ltd (1978) • P, a motor car dealers, sold a car on hire-purchase terms to C (Mr. Croucher) • In default of the agreement, C entered the car in car auction run by D (auctioneers) • In the auction, the car was sold to the highest bidder • On knowing that the car had been sold, P bought an action against the auctioneers for conversion • Held: the auctioneers were liable in conversion to the true owner since they had sold a chattel to which they did not have any good title

  13. Applications: D’s remedies Conversion: • When A hands over the car D for sale in the public auction. In law, the receipt by D of B&CCo.’s chattel amounts to conversion if D’s act is inconsistent with B&C Co.’s title to the good. • On this basis, D receiving goods for sale to X may render him liable in conversion even if he innocently effects the sales because his act is inconsistent with B&C Co.’s title.

  14. Sale of Goods Ordinance s24 • Where goods are openly sold in a shop or market in Hong Kong, in the ordinary course of the business of such shop or market, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of any defect or want of title on the part of the seller.

  15. Leake v Loveday (1842) • It was held that where P was not in possession at the time of the conversion but relied on his right to possession, jus tertii could be pleaded by the defendant.

  16. Applications: X’s Title • If B&C Co. will take legal action against X for conversion. X can plead jus tertii as defence • As a buyer in market overt, X may also claim that he has bought the car in good faith and without knowledge of the defeat in the seller’s title

  17. Conclusion B&C Co. may sue A for Trespass to chattels • The remedies: Damage B&C Co. may sue both A and D for conversion • The remedies: Damages -Both A and D are liable to pay the outstanding balance due from B&C Co. ($6000*18=$108000) X’s title to the car • He may get the title as he may plead that he buys the car in the market overt, for bona fide value and without knowledge of defeat in title

More Related