The court was asked whether what purported to be a contract for the hire purchase of certain trucks was in truth an unregistered bill of sale over the trucks thereby disentitling the finance company from taking possession of the vehicles upon the hirer going into liquidation.
Davies LJ stated: ‘No authority is needed for the proposition that it is the duty of the court in any given case to look behind the form of any transaction such as that at present under consideration and to ascertain its real substance.’
Sellers LJ described it as ‘the duty of the court to discover the true nature of the transaction’.
Judges:
Davies LJ
Citations:
[1965] 2 QB 537
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.263869