Introduction - Anderson Fishery Ltd Legal Case Analysis
The passage of property and risk in the sale of goods is a cornerstone of commercial law, intricately governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979). This area of law establishes the precise moment when ownership and responsibility for potential loss or damage transfer from the seller to the buyer, impacting contractual obligations, insurance considerations, and the rights of parties in the event of unforeseen circumstances, including insolvency. This analysis will delve into the principles outlined in the SGA 1979 concerning ascertained and unascertained goods, goods delivered on an approval basis, and the ramifications of seller insolvency, drawing upon relevant case law to illustrate these key legal concepts.
Pass of Property and risk
In the aspects related to the unascertained goods within the Sales of Goods Act 1979 has also been focusing on the passing on the property risks and the risks are also a nuanced area of law that are designed to regulate the transactions involving goods. Furthermore, Section 2 (1), SGA 1979 has also stated that the contract of sale of goods under a contract must be done by the seller transferred and agrees to transfer the property under the goods for the buyers for money under consideration.
In this perspective, section 16 of this Act has also been reflecting that the common law related to property does not pass until goods are ascertained or specifically set aside for the contract. Section 18 Rule 5 of the Act has also been stating that property in unascertained goods has also been passed under unconditional appropriation. On the other hand, Sections 20A and 20B have been introduced to address issues particularly pertinent to buyers who have prepaid for goods in bulk that are to be ascertained or separated. Furthermore, it has also been focusing on the circumstances of seller insolvency. In terms of the passing of property, it is identified that under the case of Bayley J. in Gillett v Hill, 149 ER 871 at 873 a buyer must say he has property in goods forming part of a bulk storage if no one can point to the individuality of the goods.
As per the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA), "property in the goods" refers to ownership or legal title of the goods, whereas "risk" pertains to the responsibility for any loss or damage that may occur to the goods. Typically, both property and risk transfer to the buyer at the time the contract is formed, unless the parties have a different intention. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this general rule, which depend on factors such as whether the goods are clearly identified, whether they are specified, and the nature of the contract, whether it involves just the sale of goods or both the sale and delivery of goods.
In this particular situation, Anderson Fishery Limited is selling specific goods to Matthew, Alice, and Henry. These goods are clearly identified and agreed upon at the time of the contract. Furthermore, the contract encompasses both the sale and subsequent delivery of these goods, which is scheduled for October 2022. As a result, the general rule applies: ownership and responsibility for any loss or damage to the goods will be transferred to the buyers at the moment of delivery, unless there is a contrary agreement. This implies that until the actual delivery occurs, Anderson Fishery Limited retains ownership and assumes the risk associated with any potential loss or damage to the goods.
Furthermore, it is also to be stated that the case of Elphick v. Barnes (1880) 5 CPD 321 under the contract law has also been highlighting essential perspectives related to consideration in contract formation. In this perspectives, it is also to be stated that Mr. Elphick has claimed an agreement with Mrs. Barnes is adequate and it is also to be stated that the court has observed that the this contract is not enforceable as there is no contract available.
Understanding when property and risk pass in the sale of goods transactions is fundamental in contract law, with the Sale of Goods Act 1979 providing clear guidance in various sections. Section 20(1) of the Act establishes a general rule: the goods remain at the seller's risk until property in them is transferred to the buyer. This rule is pivotal for risk allocation, insurance considerations, and liability arrangements between the parties. It affects payment terms as payment can be linked to the passage of property.
In this particular scenario, the vintage trawler is considered a specific good because it was clearly identified and agreed upon at the time the contract was made. Additionally, the contract involves both the sale and the subsequent delivery of the trawler, with payment due upon delivery. Therefore, as per the default rule, the risk associated with the trawler will transfer to David upon its delivery, unless there is an agreement stating otherwise. This means that until the trawler is delivered, Anderson Fishery Limited remains the owner and assumes the risk of any potential loss or damage to the trawler. Section 20(1) has stated that as a cornerstone in contract law, it has been emphasizing the importance of clarity and precision in defining when property and risk pass to ensure smooth and lawful commercial transactions.
Payment by Alice and Henry After Insolvency
In the case of Kirkham v Attenborough [1897] 1 QB 201, the court's decision has also stated that in transactions where goods are sent "on approval,". It has also been storing the goods without examination does not constitute an act adopting the transaction. This case has stated that the principle that an affirmative act is required to bind the buyer to the transaction such as actual acceptance or usage of the goods. It has further highlighted the importance of unequivocal acceptance in sales contracts. It has also been guiding future cases involving similar circumstances.
The insolvency of Anderson Fishery Limited could also impact the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in the sale of the vintage trawler to David. According to the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA), if a seller agrees to sell specific goods and those goods are destroyed without any fault on either side before the buyer assumes the risk, the contract is voided. However, if the seller agrees to sell goods that are not yet identified, and these goods are destroyed without any fault on either side before the buyer becomes the owner, the contract is not voided. In this case, the seller is not held liable for failing to deliver the goods.
Remedies
In the complex case involving Anderson Fishery Limited different remedies can be pursued to address the various legal issues. Matthew, Alice and Henry have purchased salmon from the company can seek compensation for the unfulfilled delivery or participate in insolvency proceedings to assert their claims as creditors. The insolvency of the company has also been opening the possibility of scrutinizing preferential payments made before insolvency. Furthermore, legal action can be taken against Andrew for the unauthorized sale of the Nissan Qashqai and efforts can be made to recover the vehicle or seek compensation from Arthur. Reviewing the contractual terms of the vintage trawler sale to David is essential to determine the timing of payment upon delivery. Each remedy depends on the specific circumstances and applicable laws, highlighting the complexity of addressing the legal consequences of insolvency and related transactions. Legal guidance is indispensable in navigating this intricate web of legal issues and pursuing appropriate remedies for all parties involved.
The case of E Hardy & Co (London) Ltd v Hillerns & Fowler [1923] 1 KB 658 aligns with Weiner v Gill in emphasizing the importance of payment as a factor in determining acceptance. In both cases, acceptance is linked to payment. However, the case of Ornstein v Alexandra Furnishing Co differs in that it focuses on the act of returning goods as a prerequisite for rejection. Failure to return the goods is considered acceptance.
In E Hardy & Co (London) Ltd v Hillerns & Fowler, the act of reselling part of the goods was deemed acceptance. It illustrates that actions taken by the buyer can constitute acceptance, even if they have not physically paid for the goods. Couchman v Hill [1947] 1 KB 554, particularly Scott L.J.'s statement, clarifies that elements in a description that are fundamental to the "identity" of the subject matter sold can be considered conditions of the contract. This principle has had a lasting impact on the interpretation of contracts and the distinction between conditions and warranties in contract law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the legal framework surrounding the passage of property and risk under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides essential clarity for commercial transactions. The distinction between ascertained and unascertained goods, the implications of delivery on approval, and the consequences of insolvency are critical considerations for both buyers and sellers. Case law, such as Gillett v Hill, Elphick v. Barnes, Kirkham v Attenborough, and others, further illuminates the practical application of these statutory provisions. Understanding these nuanced legal principles is paramount for navigating commercial dealings effectively, allocating responsibilities appropriately, and seeking appropriate remedies when contractual obligations are affected by events such as insolvency or the nature of the goods themselves.
Have you received disappointing feedback on your assignments?
Don’t let one bad grade hold you back. Professional Assignment Help offers expert-level editing, restructuring, and content refinement to ensure your work meets academic standards. Improve your grades, reduce revisions, and build your academic confidence with help that’s made just for your needs.
References
Aboukdir AA, ‘The Timing of the Passing of Risk under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Interplay between the Principle of Party Autonomy and the Default Rule: Should the Risk Linked to the Passing of Property or to the Situation of the Goods?’ [2017] SSRN Electronic Journal
Aboukdir DA, ‘The Timing of the Passing of Risk under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Interplay between the Principle of Party Autonomy and the Default Rule: Should the Risk Linked to the Passing of Property or to the Situation of the Goods?’ (papers.ssrn.com9 July 2017) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2999446> accessed 27 December 2023
Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Sale of Goods Act 1979’ (Legislation.gov.uk2011) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/2>
Lexisnexis, ‘234 Unconditional Appropriation of Unascertained Goods: Sale of Goods Act 1979 Section 18 Rule 5 | Sale of Goods Vol 34 | LexisNexis’ (www.lexisnexis.co.uk2021) <https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/commentary/efp/sale-of-goods-vol-34/234-unconditional-appropriation-of-unascertained-goods-sale-of-goods-act-1979-section-18-rule-5> accessed 27 December 2023
