The court considered the requirements for notice in section 28(1). Neill J said: ‘2. the Court is concerned with actual notice and not with constructive notice.
3. In deciding whether a person . . had actual notice:
(a) the Court will apply an objective test and look at all the circumstances;
(b) if by an objective test clear notice was given, liability cannot be avoided by proof merely of the absence of actual knowledge;
(c) a person will be deemed to have had notice of any fact to which it can be shown that he deliberately turned a ‘blind eye’ . . ;
(d) on the other hand the Court will not expect the recipient of goods to scrutinize commercial documents such as delivery notes with great care;
(e) there is no general duty on a buyer of goods in an ordinary commercial transaction to make inquiries as to the right of the seller to dispose of the goods; (f) (whether the circumstances, looked at objectively, constitute notice) must be a matter of fact and degree to be determined in the particular circumstances of the case . .
4. The burden of proving a bona fide purchase for value without notice rests on the person who asserts it.’
Judges:
Neill J
Citations:
(1981) Com LR 251
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Angara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and Another QBD 29-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the application of Section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 when an unpaid supplier of bunkers to a time charterer claims against the owner of the vessel.
Held: The issue was whether as a matter of fact there was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Commonwealth
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421768
