No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The sale of property by a non-owner is an important question in many legal systems. The problem is more acute in the case of movables, since with immovable property the existence of a register of title allows the buyer to check with relative ease whether the seller is in fact the owner. There is usually no register of title to movable property, and the buyer will usually identify the holder of goods who is offering them for sale as their owner.
There are three parties involved in the problem: A — the real or original owner, B — the seller, and C — the buyer. B may be a thief, a finder or A's bailee, or he may have obtained the property from A by misrepresentation, and so forth. In many cases it is impossible to obtain satisfaction from B, either because he cannot be traced or because he is insolvent, and the question of who owns the property, A or C, then assumes vital importance.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1985
References
1 The principal legal authors in England devote considerable attention to the problem. See Benjamin's, Sale of Goods (London, 2nd ed., 1981) paras. 461–570Google Scholar (hereinafter Benjamin), Atiyah, P.S., The Sale of Goods (London, 6th ed., 1980) 220–263Google Scholar (hereinafter Atiyah). The discussion centres mainly on the Sale of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter English Sale of Goods Act), secs. 22–25 (there are no substantive changes from the earlier statute of 1893, hereinafter the 1893 Act).
2 The buyer is also protected if he relied on the entry in the registry and it later emerged that the entry does not reflect the true situation. See Land Law, 5729–1969 (23 L.S.I. 283), sec. 10.
3 For certain classes of chattels there is compulsory registration of title and of transfer of ownership. In the case of motor vehicles the accepted view was that this was a public law duty only and had no effect on the parties' ownership rights. Landau P. in Kohn v. Hason (1981) 35(iii) P.D. 611, tended to the opinion that in view of amendments to the transport regulations, registration of cars is now like registration of rights in land. For criticism of this judgment, see Band, T. and Pozner, A., “A Market Overt in the Sale of Cars?” (1984) 13 Mishpatim 319.Google Scholar
4 Devlin J. expressed the point clearly in Ingram v. Little [1961] 1 Q.B. 31 at 73: “For the doing of justice, the relevant question in this sort of case is… which of two innocent parties shall suffer for the fraud of a third.”
5 See the remarks of Lord Denning in Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Transport Brakes Ltd. [1949] 1 K.B. 322, 336. The point is also made by Guri, Ruth, “Sale in Market Overt” (1972) 2 Iyunei Mishpat 92.Google Scholar
6 Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733–1973 (27 L.S.I. 117), sec. 21.
7 In certain circumstances A can claim the property from C on the grounds of unjust enrichment or by an action in tort. For a discussion of this point, see Cohen, N., “The Effect of Rescission on Unregistered Land Transactions” (1984) 35 HaPraklit 215 at 230–231.Google Scholar
8 See generally Friedmann, D., “Rights of the Owner against a Third Party in Modern Israeli Legislation” (1974) 4 Iyunei Mishpat 245.Google Scholar
9 See Bank HaPoalim Ltd. v. Garburg (1978) 32(i) P.D. 253 (hereinafter Garburg) Ben-Ami v. Bank Leumi Ltd. (1979) 33(iii) P.D. 576 (hereinafter Ben-Ami). See also Ness v. Golda (1982) 36 (i) P.D. 204, and N. Cohen's criticism of the judgment, supra n. 7.
10 Pipskovitz & Sons Ltd. v. Avni Yitzhak and Partners (1981) 35(iii) P.D. 169 (hereinafter Pipskovitz).
11 See Shalev, G., “Defects in the Formation of Contract” in Interpretation of Contract Laws, Tedeschi, G., ed., (Jerusalem, 1981, in Hebrew) 144–146Google Scholar; Yadin, U., book review on Shalev, G., Defects in the Formation of Contract (1983) 12 Mishpatim 629 at 632–633Google Scholar; Friedmann, D., Unjust Enrichment (Tel Aviv, 1982) 633–640Google Scholar; Tedeschi, G., “Sale of Land and Restitution upon Rescission” (1984) 13 Mishpatim 265 at 267–270.Google Scholar See also N. Cohen, supra n. 7.
12 For a short comparative survey of the Continental system on the problem, see Smith, T.B., Property Problems in Sale (London, 1978) 155–158.Google Scholar See also Comment, “Transfer of Movables by a Non-Owner” (1980–81) 55 Tulane L.R. 145 at 146–150.
13 For a comparison of English and French Law, see Lawson, F.H., “The Passing of Property and Risk in Sale of Goods” (1949) 65 L.Q.R. 352, 354.Google Scholar In more detail, see Harding, C.S.P. and Rowell, M.S., “Protection of Property versus Protection of Commercial Transactions in French and English Law” (1977) 26 Int'l and Comp. L. Q. 354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 See Harding and Rowell, supra n. 13 at 359–362. See also Friedmann, supra n. 8 at 253, and text at n. 119 et seq., infra.
15 See Smith, supra n. 12 at 184–185. The influence of the Continental approach is apparent in sec. 5 of the Pledges Law, 5727–1967 (21 L.S.I. 44). See Friedmann, supra n. 8 at 252–253. See also text at n. 96 et seq., infra.
16 The Latin maxim has a double meaning: a person cannot transfer ownership in property unless he is its owner, and the owner cannot transfer more rights than he has in the property (as when another has a proprietary right less than ownership). We are concerned here mainly with the first meaning. Cf., Atiyah, at 222.
17 The same provision existed in sec. 21(1) of the 1893 Act, and in the United States in sec. 24 of the Uniform Sales Act. The sale provisions in the United States are now consolidated in Art. 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter UCC) which has been adopted in most of the States of the Union. The parallel provision in the UCC is formulated differently, see sec. 2–403(1).
18 English Sale of Goods Act, sec. 22. In the United States, most States have not adopted the “market overt” exception. See text at n. 110, infra.
19 English Sale of Goods Act, sec. 21(2) (b).
20 Factors Act, 1889, sec. 2. In the UCC this is now the theory of “entrustment”, see sec. 2–403(2)–(3).
21 English Sale of Goods Act, sec. 23, which is cited below in full. In the United States: UCC 2–403(1).
22 English Sale of Goods Act, secs. 24–25. For the American law, see supra n. 20.
23 In sec. 2–403(1) of the UCC, the language is briefer: “A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value”. The UCC does not define “voidable title”, which must be sought in the pre-code law. See White, James J. and Summers, Roberts S., Handbook of the Law under the U.C.C. (St. Paul, 2nd ed., 1980) 140–141.Google Scholar
24 It is interesting to note that in the Mejelle, which preceded the Sale Law, there is a section laying down the nemo dat rule. Sec. 465 of the Mejelle (Frumkin Translation, Jerusalem, 1952) states: “For sale to exist, the seller must be the owner of the thing sold, a person authorized by the owner or a trustee, and no other person with a right in the thing sold”.
25 Sale Law, 5728–1968 (22 L.S.I. 107), sec. 34.
26 Pledges Law, sec. 5.
27 Sale Law, sec. 34A.
28 Contracts (General Part) Law, sec. 13.
29 This provision pertains to rights and not movables. See Transfer of Obligations Law, 5729–1969 (23 L.S.I. 277), sec. 4. Ownership of the right passes to the transferee at the time of transfer, before notice to the debtor. See Temporary Receivers and Directors of Electrogenics (Israel) Ltd. v. Elscint Ltd. (1975) 29(i) P.D. 121 at 126; Garbov v. Israel Ports Authority (1977) 31 (iii) P.D. 146 at 149–150.
30 Apte v. Apte (1971) 25(i) P.D. 561. According to ProfessorWeisman's, view, expressed in his article “Can a Spouse Confer a Better Title than He Possesses?” (1972) 7 Is. L. R. 302CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the Court went too far on this issue, and indeed in their opinion the judges themselves called for intervention by the legislator.
31 The Court even saw in this knowledge a sign that A transferred ownership in the property to B, so that the latter could sell it to C See p. 174 of the judgment.
32 Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law, 5731–1970 (25 L.S.I. 11), sec. 7.
33 Pp. 183–184 of the judgment.
34 Cf., Atiyah, at 253.
35 The judge's view is that rescission due to defect in formation or for breach exists in obligations and not in property. In other words, B is still owner and can transfer his title to C See pp. 182–183 of the judgment.
36 E.g., B hired property from A, who subsequently transferred ownership to C. Because B's right as a hirer is in rem (see Weisman, , The Land Law 1969: A Critical Analysis (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1970, in Hebrew) 57–63Google Scholar, regarding land), C's ownership is subject thereto. See Hire and Loan Law, 5731–1971 (25 L.S.I. 152), sec. 21.
37 Weisman, J., “Fundamental Concepts of Property Law: A Critical Survey” (1981) 11 Mishpatim 41 at 66.Google Scholar
38 Movable Property Law, 5731–1971 (25 L.S I. 175), sec. 12.
39 Land Law, 5729–1969, sec. 9.
40 See Cohen, N., Interference with Contractual Relations (Tel Aviv, 1982, in Hebrew) 44–45.Google Scholar
41 To use J. Weisman's phrase, supra n. 36 at 13–14.
42 See Procaccia, U., Bankruptcy Law and Civil Legislation in Israel (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1984, in Hebrew) 101–105Google Scholar who supports the property approach. In his view, the buyer has equitable ownership in the property from the time of the contract of sale, and has priority over the other creditors in the seller's bankruptcy.
43 See N. Cohen, supra n. 41 at 60 et seq.
44 Cf., Stockman v. Spitani (1974) 28(ii) P.D. 182, on the relationship between an imperfect pledge and a later acquirer of the property. But see Cohen, N., “Is the Purchaser ‘Another Creditor of the Debtor’?” (1975) 4 Iyunei Mishpat 464 at 468.Google Scholar
45 The same is the case in the United States. See Charles M. Weber, “The Extension of the Voidable Title Principle Under the Code” (1960–61) 49 Kentucky LJ. 437 at 439–440.
46 See Benjamin, at 241–246; Atiyah, at 243–244. This approach derives from the view that secs. 21–26 of the English Sale of Goods Act deal with the nemo dat rule and the exceptions thereto. But see Battersby, G. and Preston, A.D., “The Concepts of ‘Property’, ‘Title’, and ‘Owner’ Used in the Sale of Goods Act 1893” (1972) 35 Mod. L.R. 268 at 276, n. 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In their view: “Sale under voidable title is not really an exception to the rule. The original seller's right to avoid his sale (a mere equity) is defeated by the subsequent sale to a buyer in good faith”.
47 Law Reform Committee, Twelfth Report, Transfer of Title to Chattels, Cmnd. 2958, April 1966Google Scholar (hereinafter Committee Report).
48 Sec. 4.
49 See supra n. 46.
50 But see text at n. 102, infra. Etzioni J.'s approach to the nature of the rescission was rejected by Levin J. in Pipskovitz. Some scholars argue that in the case of defect in formation rescission does have a retrospective effect; see Friedmann, supra n. 11 at 633; Tedeschi, supra n. 11 at 268.
51 Cf., G. Shalev, supra n. 11 at 144–146. Rescission with prospective effect only is generally accepted by scholars in the case of rescission due to breach. See Friedmann, supra n. 11 at 635–638; Tedeschi, supra n. 11 at 269–270.
52 Apart from Levin J. in Pipskovitz, this view is also shared by U. Yadin, supra n. 11 at 632–633.
53 On this approach C may defeat A even if he acquired the property after A rescinded. See Yadin, supra, n. 11 at 633; see also Tedeschi, supra n. 11 at 268.
54 Calanit HaSharon Investments and Construction (1978) Ltd. v. Hurwitz (1981) 35 (iii) P.D. 533 at 540.
55 Tedeschi, supra n. 11 at 268; see also Shalev, supra a. 11 at 146.
56 These conditions are demanded of C in market overt under sec. 34 of the Sale Law. C's good faith is a basic condition for his priority over an earlier titleholder. Cf., Pledges Law, secs. 4(3) and 5; Trust Law, 5739–1979 (33 L.S.I. 154), sec. 5.
57 Gilmore, G., “The Commercial Doctrine of Good Faith Purchase” (1954) 63 Yale L.J. 1057 at 1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58 On the clear distinction between ownership and possession in Roman Law (as opposed to Common Law), see Buchland, W.W. and McNair, Arnold D., Roman Law and Common Law (Cambridge, 2nd ed. by Lawson, F.H., 1952) 66et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The authors claim that in practice: “In English law, at any rate in the law of movables, there is hardly such a thing like ownership” (p. 76).
59 See supra n. 46.
60 Gilmore, supra n. 57 at 1059.
61 See Dolan, John F., “The U.C.C. Framework; Conveyancing Principles and Property Interests” (1979) 59 Bost. U. L. R. 811 at 814.Google Scholar On these two theories in connection with market overt, see Band and Pozner, supra n. 3 at 321–322.
62 See Dolan, supra n. 61 at 814, n. 18.
63 According to sec. 2(5) of the English Sale of Goods Act: “Where under a contract of sale the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition later to be fulfilled the contract is called an agreement to sell”.
64 See Benjamin, para. 482. The law is different for cars: a person acquiring a car on conditional purchase can pass good title by virtue of a special statutory provision. See Hire-Purchase Act 1964, Part III.
65 See Atiyah, at 243.
66 See Gilmore, supra n. 57 at 1060–1062.
67 See Mann, R.A. and Phillips, M.J., “Cash Seller under the U.C.C.” (1979) 20 Boston College L. R. 370 at 375–376.Google Scholar See also Gilmore, supra n. 57 at n. 14.
68 See Benjamin, para. 483.
69 See Weber, supra n. 45 at 445.
70 Ibid., at 446.
71 See UCC, sec. 2–403(1)(a)–(d). In the official comments to the section it is stated: “…Subsection (1) provides specially for the protection of the good faith pur chaser for value in a number of specific situations which have been troublesome under prior law.”
72 Ingram v. Little [1961] 1 Q.B. 31.
73 Ibid., at 73–74.
74 See supra n. 47.
75 In the Committee's view, Lord Devlin's solution would result in a lack of certainty and of clarity, whereas precisely these elements are important in the field of commerce. In practical terms it would also be difficult for C or for anyone who acquired from him to prove the negligence of the original owner A. See paras. 8–10 of the Committee's report. See also Smith, supra n. 12 at 175–177.
76 Sec. 15 of the Committee's report.
77 See Benjamin, para. 484.
78 [1965] 1 Q.B. 525.
79 Benjamin, para. 487.
80 Ibid., para 488. See also Atiyah, at 244.
81 Ibid.
82 Benjamin, para. 487.
83 A similar rule is found in sec. 9 of the Factors Act 1889. For the American law, see supra n. 20.
84 See Atiyah, at 248–249.
85 Newton of Wembly Ltd. v. Williams [1965] 1 Q.B. 560.
86 Atiyah, at 250–251.
87 Benjamin, para. 529.
88 See text at n. 84, supra.
89 This was the situation until the Hire-Purchase Act, 1965, which consolidated different rules governing conditional sale and hire purchase. See Atiyah, at 249.
90 See Gilmore, G., “The Good Faith Purchase Idea and the Uniform Commercial Code: Confessions of a Repentant Draftsman” (1981) 15 Georgia L. R. 605.Google Scholar
91 Tedeschi, supra n. 11 at 268.
92 For a different view see text at nn. 52–53, supra.
93 Foundations of Law 5740–1980 (34 L.S.I. 181), sec. 1.
94 See Friedmann, supra n. 8 at 259–261.
95 In order to make an exception from the nemo dat rule, the legislator may demand of C consideration, good faith and perfection of his title. Under the “adverse transaction” sections the second purchaser (C) takes precedence over the first only where ownership has passed to him (registration in sec. 9 of the Land Law; “received” in the meaning of transfer of ownership in sec. 12 of the Movables Law). The market overt rule in the Pledges Law gives C precedence only where he has perfected the pledge by registration or deposit. According to Prof. Weisman (Weisman, J., “The Pledges Law, 5727–1967”, in Interpretation of Contract Laws, Tedeschi, G., ed., (Jerusalem, 1974, in Hebrew) 154Google Scholar): “This approach is typical of the rules governing market overt. The law is prepared to give the purchaser (or pledgee) precedence over the real owner only if he has already acquired full title before the true owner appears. If, on the other hand, the real owner appears before the transaction is completed, the purchaser is not entitled to insist on its completion at the real owner's expense”. We saw above that the same approach exists in English Law in regard to voidable title: C will prevail only when the agreement between him and B was for immediate transfer of ownership (see text at n. 79, supra). The same results from the Pipskovitz case, and for this purpose Levin J. deals with the question whether, as between B and C, ownership has passed to C (see pp. 174–175 of the judgment). This factor of perfection of title, like those of consideration and good faith, will not be decisive in adopting the voidable title rule in Israeli law. As already stated, the essential question is C's reliance on B's possession.
96 See text at n. 44, supra.
97 In Weisman's opinion (supra n. 95 at 149): “For understandable reasons these conditions are not required in the case of the person passing title in market overt under the Pledges Law. While in sale it is possible to speak of a person whose business is selling goods of the same type as the property sold, this condition is meaningless as regards pledgers. There is no such thing as a person whose business is pledging goods.” Although this is true, there are, in our opinion, differences of approach between the Pledges Law and the Sale Law. Where B is a trader dealing in goods of the same type, there is a representation to C that B is entitled to sell the property in question or do anything else with it, including pledging it. For the purposes of market overt in pledge, the legisla tor chose to forego the requirement that the pledger (the equivalent of the seller) be engaged in selling goods of the same type, thus representing that he is entitled also to pledge them. In contrast to the Sale Law therefore, market overt in pledge can also apply when B is a private person and not a dealer.
98 Shalev, supra n. 11, claims on p. 28: “Sec. 13 in fine does not provide a means of acquiring property by a third party. This final clause of the section acts to neutralize the effect of its initial clause as regards a third party. Consequently, the final clause does not overlap other extensions of the doctrine of acquisition by a third party and cannot prejudice them.” To our mind, “neutralizing the effect of its initial clause” and “acquisition” are one and the same. Neutralizing effects that are invalid vis-à-vis a third party will enable him to acquire property contrary to the nemo dat rule. There is no other reason for neutralizing the effect of the initial clause, since it is the nullity in that clause that reflects the con tractual theory that effect is to be given to the true intention of the parties, as the author herself states on pp. 14–15.
99 This may be inferred from the language of the section. See also Shalev, Ibid., at 28. But see Friedmann, supra n. 8 at 260, n. 54, who leaves this question open.
100 Tedeschi, supra n. 11 at 268, who considers that rescission for defect in formation nullifies the contract ab initio, states: “Prior to rescission, it is said that the contract is valid—provided it is not rescinded. And once rescinded, it is not said that it was valid until the moment of rescission, but only that the law protects a purchaser who relied in good faith on the situation existing at the time”. Is it really his opinion that C has precedence only when he actually knew of the contract between A and B and relied on its existence?!
101 Tedeschi also considers that if C acquired the property after A had rescinded the contract “the law protects him within the limits of market overt and no more”. In our opinion this is not consistent with his view (see previous note) that C's right is an exception to the law of property “in the narrow sense”. Even if C takes precedence in his view only when he actually relied on the existence of the contract, rescission by A is not relevant as long as C did not know of it.
102 (1972) 26(ii) P.D. 468. On the application of the rule after amendment of the Companies Ordinance in 1980, see: Weisman, J., “The Law of a Floating Charge Restricting Transactions” (1981) 11 Mishpatim 554.Google ScholarContra: Bitterman, N., “A Fixed Charge Created Contrary to a Restriction in a Floating Charge” (1981) 34 HaPraklit 100.Google Scholar
103 Etzioni J. confuses the rule in Anglo-Palestine Bank with the grounds that rescission of the contract is retrospective.
104 See Guri, supra n. 5 at 100–101.
105 Para. 30 of the Committee Report.
106 Benjamin, paras. 475–476.
107 See Chalmer's, Sale of Goods Act, 1979 (London, 1981 edition by Mark, Michael) 168.Google Scholar
108 Benjamin, para. 478.
109 This rule was abolished by the Theft Act, 1968. See Atiyah, at 243.
110 One of the reasons for this was that in the United States there are no open markets in the same sense as in England. See Corpus Juris Secundum, vol. 77, sec. 293. Atiyah, at 242, also expresses regret that the market overt provision, which has no justification apart from historical reasons, was not abolished by the 1979 Act. Most of the members of the Law Reform Committee took the opposite view, recommending that the rule be extended to cover all retail outlets. See para. 33 of the Committee's report. For a similar recommendation, see Ivamy, E.R.H., “Revision of the Sale of Goods Act” (1956) 9 Current Legal Problems 113 at 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Committee's report was severely criticized for ignoring the effects on the market of stolen goods: Atiyah, P.S., “Law Reform Committee: Twelfth Report” (1966) 29 Mod. L. R. 541.Google Scholar
111 For a comparison of the Israeli system with the English and others, see the article by Ruth Guri, supra n. 5.
112 In Kibbutz Galil Yam v. Zecharia Shatel (1975) 31 (i) P.D. 236, Shamgar J. (as he then was) stated the following: “…in contrast to the situation in the Common Law and to the provisions of sec. 53 of the Civil Wrongs Ordinance (New Version) prior to amendment in 1968, it is of no consequence for the application of market overt if the sale took place in a shop or elsewhere. The decisive factor for these purposes is whether the sale was in the normal course of the seller's business…” For this reason the Court applied the rule of market overt in favour of a buyer who had bought from a travelling salesman.
113 Cf., HaSneh Israel Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Clement Coral (1977) 33(i) P.D. 309, 323.
114 P. 168 of the judgment, sections E-F. The Court did not deem it necessary to go into the question of whether market overt applies only when the price is paid in cash or whether “in circumstances of partial payment only, the purchaser will be entitled to only a corresponding part in the goods”.
115 See text at n. 62, supra.
116 On duress, see Penal Law, 5737–1977 (L.S.I. Special Volume), secs. 192, 427, 428. On extortion, see Penal Law, sec. 431. On the relationship between the criminal offence of extortion and sec. 18 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, see G. Shalev, supra n. 11 at 109–111; Deutch, S., “Extortion in the Contracts Law” (1981) 1 Mehkarei Mishpat 17–19.Google Scholar
117 Penal Law, secs. 414 and 415. See also the judgment of Dvorin J. in Sheleg v. Gali (1984) 101 (a) P.M. 265.
118 “In both cases payment is made as a result of mistake or deceit, i.e., the payment is involuntary, and in both cases because of mistake or deceit there is a lack of intention on the part of the payer to transfer the money to the payee…” (p. 576 of the judgment).
119 See text at n. 12 et seq., supra.
120 C will take precedence over A also where the contract between A and B is rescinded due to breach by B and B subsequently sold the property to C. Where the sale to C precedes rescission, C takes precedence over A under the normal rules of ownership and not as an exception to the nemo dat rule.
121 Cf. also Weinberg, Harold R., “Sales Law, Economics and the Negotiability of Goods” (1980) 9 J. of Legal Studies 569 at 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Usually the owner can prevent fraud more easily than theft. But this rule will not be different where the situation is the reverse: where the fraud is sophisticated and hard to prevent, while the theft occurred as a result of A's negligence. See Harding and Rowell, supra n. 13 at 360–362. The difficulty is that the reasoning does not apply when the defect in the formation of the contract is extortion or duress. In the case of duress, not only the transfer but also the whole contact between A and B was involuntary. Likewise with extortion, A cannot prevent the loss any more than C, by reason of A's “mental or physical weakness or inexperience” (Contracts (General Part) Law, sec. 18). For this reason, and given the criminal nature of duress and extortion, it is preferable to hold that C acquires good title in these cases only under the conditions of market overt.
122 See Weinberg, supra n. 121 at 589–590.
123 In French law C takes precedence over A even where B is a thief if A's claim against C is made more than three years after the property left his possession, or where C acquired the property in a place where goods of that type are sold. See Harding and Rowell, supra n. 13 at 363.
124 On the lack of consistency between the various market overt rules, see Friedmann, supra n. 8 at 251–255. See also supra a. 97.
- 1
- Cited by