The defendant had acquired a vehicle in lieu of payment of a debt. The vehicle was subject to an HP agreement with the claimant, who now sought possession of it. The defendant argued that it had the protection of section 27, there having been a disposition of the vehicle. The claimant now sought summary judgment.
Held: Summary judgment was granted. The term ‘disposition’ was limited to a specific transaction where the vehicle was transferred in return for money. That there was no need to stretch the definition to cover less straightforward transactions: ‘There may be scope for argument about how far the Sections cover payment of a genuine price by means other than cash. Part exchange is it seems covered by the section no doubt because there is at least some passing of money and that process is a very common if not usual incident of buying a car. The distinction may become more difficult when the value of the car to be traded in reaches or exceeds the price of the car being acquired – where in Mr Stone’s submissions the transactions would not be protected – but that is not this case. There is no suggestion here that the Vehicle was sold for a price and payment subsequently agreed to be made by set-off of debts. The debts are only half the value of the ‘invoice’. This was some odd barter.’
Judge Mackie QC
[2013] RTR 29, [2013] EWHC 346 (QB), [2013] 1 WLR 2987, [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 462, [2013] WLR(D) 91
Bailii
Hire-Purchase Act 1964 27 29(1)
Citing:
Cited – Robshaw Brothers Limited v Mayer 1956
Upjohn J considered what would amount to a sale. He quoted the following passage from an article which he said correctly stated the law: ‘But it is well established by judicial authority that in English law the primary meaning of the word ‘sale’ is . .
Cited – In Re Westminster Property Group plc 1984
The court considered the meaning of the word ‘sale’ in the phrase ‘sale or purchase’ in Order 14A RSC. Nourse J said: ‘The authorities establish that in legislative usage and in the absence of a special context the word ‘sale’ denotes an exchange of . .
Cited – Royscott Trust v Burno Daken Ltd and David Ball QBD 9-Jul-1993
R let a vehicle on hire purchase terms to one E(SS), who passed it to BD in breach of his obligations under the hire purchase agreement. E(SS) drew up an ‘invoice’ stating the value of the car to be a certain sum, X. At the time, E(SS) owed BD . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Contract
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.471303
