The bank had entered into a master trading agreement with a trader under which the trader bought motor vehicles as agent for the bank for resale. The vehicles belonged to the bank. The defendant bought all the trader’s vehicles. The defendant now sought to rely upon the 1964 Act to protect his purchase of the vehicles after the bank called in its loan. The defendant did not usually trade in cars but intended to sell them for profit.
Held: It was not necessary for the defendant to be regularly buying and selling vehicles to lose the protection of the 1964 Act. At the time he bought the vehicles Mr. Rushton was a trade purchaser and not a private purchaser within the meaning of the Act. It was a one-off adventure in the nature of trade, carried through with a view to profit.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Rix, Moore-Bick LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1556, Times 21-Dec-2005,  1 WLR 899
Hire Purchase Act 1964 27
England and Wales
Cited – Litchfield v Dreyfus 1906
The plaintiff carried on business as an antique dealer, giving credit to customers and took bills from them in payment of amounts they owed for purchases, some of which he discounted and renewed from time to time. When he ceased business he sold his . .
Cited – Kirkwood v Gadd HL 1910
Under the 1900 Act, a moneylender was required to carry on his business only in his registered name and at his registered address.
Held: (Lord Atkinson) the words ‘carries on business’ implied a repetition of acts, and ‘Whether one isolated . .
Cited – Kenny v Conroy and Another CA 27-Jan-1999
A court need only first see whether at the time of the loan, the party’s business was that of moneylender. If not, the court then investigates if the person held themselves out as carrying on such a business. Kennedy L.J: ‘. . . a licensed . .
Cited – Newman v Oughton 1911
The plaintiff sought to execute a judgment against goods in the possession of a judgment debtor. The goods were claimed by a firm of pawnbrokers who said that they were included in a bill of sale granted to them. At the trial of the resulting . .
Cited – Marshall v Goulston Discount (Northern) Ltd 1967
Cited – Smith v Anderson CA 16-Jul-1880
Investors subscribed for shares in telegraph companies which they vested in trustees to manage the investment on certain terms. A question arose whether this arrangement contravened section 4 of the 1862 Act which prohibited the formation of an . .
Cited – R and B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd CA 1988
There was an issue whether or not the purchase by the plaintiff of a second-hand car was made ‘in the course of a business’ so as to preclude the plaintiff from relying upon the provisions of the 1977 Act.
Held: Speaking of Lord Keith’s . .
Cited – Davies v Sumner HL 1984
The defendant used his own car almost exclusively in the course of his occupation as a courier. He sold and replaced it with another for similar use. He was charged before justices with the offence of applying, ‘in the course of trade or business’, . .
Cited – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Marine Steam Turbine Co. Ltd 1920
The respondent taxpayer company, had transferred to a third party its licence to exploit various patents for the manufacture of a marine steam turbine engine in return for the payment of a royalty on every engine sold by the third party and whose . .
Cited – In re Gomersall 1867
Bills with a face value of pounds 1,700 were purchased for pounds 200.
Held: Proof that the goods were purchased at a much lower price than the ordinary trade price is not absolute proof of bad faith but is very strong evidence of fraudulent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.236377