* not completed

. What is the key purpose of a retention of title clause?

They can enable a seller to deliver goods to a buyer without the need to carry out an expensive credit check on the buyer. correct incorrect

They can enable a seller to enter the buyer's premises and take back the goods sold if the buyer fails to pay the price. correct incorrect

They can enable a seller to deliver goods to a buyer on terms that the seller retains ownership of the goods until the buyer has paid the price. correct incorrect

Historically they permitted a seller to deliver goods to a buyer on terms that the seller retains ownership of the goods until the buyer has paid the price, but they are of limited value today as the courts rarely uphold such clauses. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Is it necessary for the buyer to become insolvent before the seller can invoke a retention of title clause?

Yes correct incorrect

No correct incorrect

Only in the case of specific goods correct incorrect

Only where the seller sells the goods in the course of a business correct incorrect

* not completed

. What does section 19(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 allow a seller to do?

Recover the goods if the buyer fails to pay for them on time correct incorrect

Recover the goods if the buyer becomes insolvent correct incorrect

Reserve the right of disposal of the goods until the buyer pays for the goods correct incorrect

Reserve the right of disposal of the goods until certain conditions are fulfilled correct incorrect

* not completed

. Why might an effective retention of title clause permit the seller to recover the goods sold?

Because the buyer will have failed to pay for them correct incorrect

Because the property in the goods sold will not have passed to the buyer correct incorrect

Because the goods will not have been delivered to the buyer correct incorrect

It won't correct incorrect

* not completed

. In Tatung (UK) Ltd v Galex Telesure Ltd (1989) 5 BCC 325, on what ground did Phillips J suggest that Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676 was wrongly decided?

Because the seller's interest should have been held to be a charge correct incorrect

Because it was inconsistent with earlier authority correct incorrect

Because it had been impliedly overruled by subsequent cases correct incorrect

He didn't correct incorrect

* not completed

. Why did the retention of title clause in Re Peachdart Ltd [1984] Ch 131 fail?

Because the clause created an unregistered charge correct incorrect

Because the goods sold had lost their identity once they had been made into finished items correct incorrect

Because the buyer eventually paid for the goods correct incorrect

It didn't correct incorrect

* not completed

. Why did the retention of title clause in Hendy Lennox (Industrial Engines) Ltd v Grahame Puttick Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 485 succeed?

Because the court felt that Re Peachdart Ltd [1984] Ch 131 had been wrongly decided correct incorrect

Because there was no chance of the buyer paying for the goods as it was insolvent correct incorrect

Because the seller had registered the clause as a charge correct incorrect

Because the finished items could, with relative ease, be dismantled and the goods sold easily identified as those of the seller correct incorrect

* not completed

. Why are retention of title clauses not generally regarded as security interests, which are void if not registered?

Because they are, in the main, not security interests and do not need to be registered correct incorrect

Because security interests never need registering correct incorrect

Because the Court of Appeal said so in Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676 correct incorrect

They are security interests and are void if not registered correct incorrect

* not completed

. What is the difference (if any) between a simple retention of title clause and an all-liabilities or all-monies clause?

There is no difference. They are merely different terms for the same thing. correct incorrect

An all-liabilities or all-monies clause is one that has been expressly agreed by the parties. A retention of title clause is one that is implied by statute. correct incorrect

Retention of title clauses have been expressly approved by the Court of Appeal in Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676 and therefore will be enforced. All-liabilities or all-monies clauses have had no such approval and are unlikely to be accepted by the courts. correct incorrect

An all-liabilities or all-monies clause goes further than a simple retention of title clause and provides that a buyer will not get ownership in the goods bought until all monies or liabilities owed to the seller have been satisfied. correct incorrect

* not completed

. What should a seller do in circumstances where he needs to assert a continuing property interest in his goods?

Register the rights under section 859A of the Companies Act 2006 correct incorrect

Ensure that the retention of title clause is carefully drafted and incorporated into the contract of sale correct incorrect

Ensure that it is brought to the attention of the buyer before the contract is made correct incorrect

Nothing correct incorrect