FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 5,713 times | Saved to 314 briefcases
Butterworth v Kingsway Motors, [1954] 2 All ER 694

Facts:

R paid monthly payments on a hire-purchase agreement for a car, but had not paid all of them when R sold car to L. Car still belonged to Bow at time of sale. L then sold car to H. H then sold to the D’s. H knew they were buying car for resale. D then sold to P. H continued to make monthly payments, but learned she was still not allowed to sell. P wrote a letter to D wanting money back (saying repudiating the sale)

Issue(s):

Did P by his letter rescind the K with D?

Ratio:

Where seller has breached condition of title the buyer is entitled to recover the price w/o any allowance being made for the use of the goods

Analysis:

R did eventually pay B all the money for the car = feeding the title. This had effect of validating titles of prior transactions so that all of those transactions were valid

Holding:

Each subsequent party has a damage claim for the prior party that sold the car to them.
P gets to rescind K and get his purchase price returned.

Comments:

Rescission of the K took place before R has perfected title.
Feeding the title = reviving title that never existed in the 1st place.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.