Business Law

Business Law

Question 1(a)

The common law as to main concern in the state of personal possessions is apparent and supports all kinds of transfer, whether by contribution, vending, bailment or safety, and it is that an individual cannot offer what is not his or hers to grant. This general law is frequently articulated in the Latin proverb 'nemo dat quod non habet' and replicated in section 21 Sale of Goods Act 1957.

The SGA codifies some exceptions to the maxim whose derivation lies in the general rule. Section 21 intends towards organization, not an exemption at all, particularly since the act of the official representative is the action of the primary. Nevertheless, the first exclusion which is estoppels by agency is a different issue. The condition of estoppels in section 22(1), the law of general rule is that the possessor will be stopped from rejecting the designation of a third party where the possessor permits an unofficial person to work out a non-existing power, to appear performing with power.

The second general law exception in s23 states that, if designation is moved to a rogue in a voidable agreement, the rogue has the authority to pass on a good name at any time till the property owner keeps away from the agreement. However, the purchaser attains a good name to the goods, offered he purchases them in good belief and devoid of notification of the seller's defect of designation. Till its closure by the Sale of Goods (correction) Act 1995, a third general rule exception, codified as s 22(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, presented to look after buyers of merchandise in marketplace unconcealed (www.fds.oup.com).

The second exemption to the maxim law is alluded to in s 21 (2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act, which states 'not anything in this Act has an effect on the requirements of the Factors Acts or any performance allowing the noticeable title-holder of the merchandise to set out them as if he were their true possessor. The decree employs the expression 'merchant representative' in its place of the outdated 'feature', as described in the Factors Act 1889, s 1(1); the description of a merchant representative is somebody who has a production, and who in the way of that dealing purchases or sells merchandise for other populace. Nevertheless, an exemption relates where the commercial agent has in the way of his business ownership of the owner's merchandise for the reasons of sale, time after time with the customary but now outdated implication of the statement 'factor'. The outcome of the exemption set out in section 2 is that in the particular case where merchandise are in the control of a commercial representative, the rule in the famous case Jerome against Bentley which shows the nemo dat rule, are nevertheless overturned, this can be observed in the state of Weiner against Harris.

Sale in influence of sale or court directive would be the third exception, this move in s 21 (2) (b) asserts that, 'the legality of ...