Chapter 12 Self-test questions

. Which was the oldest of the exceptions to the nemo dat rule?

Sale by agent

Sale in market overt

Sale by a seller in possession of the goods

Sale by a buyer in possession of the goods

. Many of the exceptions to the nemo dat rule are found in the Factors Act 1889 and in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. What, if anything, is the difference between the two?

They are the same

The wording in the Factors Act 1889 is wider than that contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1979

The wording in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is wider than that contained in the Factors Act 1889

The exceptions contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, being enacted much later than the Factors Act 1889, are the only ones that are in force.

. Section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is concerned with a sale under a voidable title. What is a voidable title?

One that never existed at all

One that although once existed has now for all legal purposes ceased to exist

One that is voidable by the innocent party

One that is voidable by the court

. Section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is concerned with a sale under a voidable title. How might an innocent party avoid a voidable title?

Only by informing the other party to the contract

Only by taking back the goods

By doing all that is reasonable to avoid the contract

Only by informing the police in the case of fraud

. Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 is concerned with the sale of a motor vehicle acquired on hire purchase. Who might this section protect?

Any innocent purchaser of a vehicle acquired on hire purchase

Any private innocent purchaser of a vehicle acquired on hire purchase

Only the first private innocent purchaser of a vehicle acquired on hire purchase or conditional sale agreement

Only a purchaser who acquires a vehicle on hire purchase from a seller acting in the course of a business

. In Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31 Devlin LJ stated that a preferable solution might be to apportion the loss between the innocent victims. Is this what happens in a case concerning the transfer of title by a non-owner?

Yes.

Yes, but rarely.

No. Devlin LJ's judgment was a dissenting judgement.

Only in a case where the buyer is a consumer buyer.

. In a case where estoppel by representation is pleaded, is it relevant if the representation by the owner was induced by threats?

No. Provided a representation was made, the question of threats is irrelevant.

Yes, if the owner's representation was induced by threats it will be invalid.

This will depend on whether or not the parties had equal bargaining power.

This will depend on whether or not the parties were legally represented.

. Why did the Court of Appeal in Beverley Acceptances Ltd v Oakley [1982] RTR 417 hold that for the purposes of the FA 1889, the registration document
was not a document of title?

Because the registration document was forged.

Because the registration document stated that the registered keeper might not be the legal owner and therefore could not provide proof of ownership.

Because the parties had lost the registration document and it could not be produced before the court.

The Court of Appeal did not so hold. It held that the registered document was a document of title.

. What was the reason for the House of Lords in Helby v Matthews [1895] AC 471 deciding that the pawnbroker acquired no title to the piano by virtue s 9 of the FA 1889?

The piano has earlier been stolen.

The hire-purchase agreement was void.

The party who had entered into a hire-purchase agreement had fallen behind with his payments.

The party who had entered into a hire-purchase agreement was not under any legal obligation to purchase the piano but merely had an option to do so. He could not therefore be said to have 'agreed to buy goods' within the meaning of s 9 of the FA 1889.

. A purchaser will acquire good title to a motor vehicle provided the requirements of s 27 of the HPA 1964 are satisfied. Which of the following is not a requirement under s 27 of the Act?

The seller must have sold the motor vehicle in the course of his business.

The section only applies to pass title to a private purchaser.

The section only applies to a motor vehicle.

The seller must be in possession of the motor vehicle either as hirer under a hire-purchase agreement or purchaser under a conditional sale agreement.

Quiz Content