The Concepts of “Property,”“title” and “Owner” Used in the Sale of Goods Act 1893

Battersby, Graham; Preston, Arfah

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1972.tb01333.x

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If every "sale" necessarily involves a transfer of the best title to the goods, "section 12 becomes redundant." 72 Secondly, section 55 provides that the parties may "negative or vary" any "right, duty or liability" arising under a "contract of sale" of goods by implication of law; and the view that a sale necessarily involves the transfer of a best title "requires us to read into section 55 an exception in favour of section 12." 73 Thirdly, sections 24 and 25 of the Act enable a person who does not have the best title, by delivering goods "under any sale", to pass a title that is better than his; and these provisions would "make no sense" if there could not be a sale of a lesser title.…”

Section: Possession and The Alienation Of Lesser Titlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Battersby and Preston maintained in an influential article that, if A is the "true owner" of a chattel and B unlawfully takes possession of it, B acquires, upon obtaining possession, a "possessory title to an absolute interest" in the chattel. 7 Goode and McKendrick have drawn a similar contrast. According to their account of the law, A, in such circumstances, has the "best title to the ownership interest" and B has a "possessory title to the ownership interest" in the chattel.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Terminology and Title to Chattels: A Case Against 'Possessory Title'

Rostill¹

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A.V. Dicey maintained in his inaugural lecture that "the technical terms of law are as bad as any technicalities can be; they are technical without being precise, or, when apparently popular, are full of latent ambiguity." 1 Dicey provided three examples of defective legal terms: "chose in action", "personal property", and "void contract". 2 Dicey could have mentioned "possessory title", for it is neither precise nor unambiguous. Like many terms, "possessory title" is used in various ways. 3 This article is concerned with the use of the term to denominate the interest 4 that is acquired by a person, B, when (and because) B takes possession of another person's (A's) tangible chattel. 5 This usage is not uncommon. Palmer, for instance, has asserted that possession of a chattel gives rise to a "possessory title". 6 Battersby and Preston maintained in an influential article that, if A is the "true owner" of a chattel and B unlawfully takes possession of it, B acquires, upon obtaining possession, a "possessory title to an absolute interest" in the chattel. 7 Goode and McKendrick have drawn a similar contrast. According to their account of the law, A, in such circumstances, has the "best title to the ownership interest" and B has a "possessory title to the ownership interest" in the chattel. 8 Green and Randall have asserted that a possessor, such as B, acquires a "possessory right" over the chattel; 9 and it is notable that this formulation avoids the ambiguity of "title". 10

show abstract

Section: Possession and The Alienation Of Lesser Titlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Terminology and Title to Chattels: A Case Against 'Possessory Title'

Rostill¹

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Some Reflections on “Property” and “Title” in the Sale of Goods Act

Ho¹

1997

C.L.J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (“the Act”) uses two terms, “property” and “title”, which one would normally associate with ownership. Of “title”, there is no definition in the Act; of “property”, there is one. But the definition, as we shall see, does not carry us very far. There has been much debate on the meaning of the two terms. The approach advocated by Battersby and Preston in a deservedly well-known article appears to have gained considerable acceptance.5 This paper hopes to present, as a theoretical possibility, an alternative interpretation of the uses and meanings of those concepts and of their relationship. It would be useful to begin with a brief description of “ownership” since “property” and “title” are associated with it.

show abstract

Voidable Title

Lerner¹

1985

Isr. law rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sale of property by a non-owner is an important question in many legal systems. The problem is more acute in the case of movables, since with immovable property the existence of a register of title allows the buyer to check with relative ease whether the seller is in fact the owner. There is usually no register of title to movable property, and the buyer will usually identify the holder of goods who is offering them for sale as their owner.There are three parties involved in the problem: A — the real or original owner, B — the seller, and C — the buyer. B may be a thief, a finder or A's bailee, or he may have obtained the property from A by misrepresentation, and so forth. In many cases it is impossible to obtain satisfaction from B, either because he cannot be traced or because he is insolvent, and the question of who owns the property, A or C, then assumes vital importance.

show abstract

The Concepts of “Property,”“title” and “Owner” Used in the Sale of Goods Act 1893

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Terminology and Title to Chattels: A Case Against 'Possessory Title'

Terminology and Title to Chattels: A Case Against 'Possessory Title'

Some Reflections on “Property” and “Title” in the Sale of Goods Act

Voidable Title

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About