Stuart Stockton

Rhenium: ROGER RIBBLE

_____________________________________________________________________

Opinion

_____________________________________________________________________

1.INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH

The sentiment should get down with a paragraph summarizing the instructions given by the instructing canvasser.

Points To Include:

  • You have been asked to rede Mr Roger Ribble of his legal place in relation to recent events sing a ‘Cumbrian ‘ motorised train.
  • First, whether he has rubric to the train following his purchase of it from Mr Stuart Stockton.
  • Following, whether he has any claims against or is apt to Mr Stockton, Crewe Credit, Glossop Garage and Mr Marlow.
  • Finally, what stairss should be taken on behalf of Mr Ribble.

2.Summary OF THE FACTS

A brief sum-up of the facts should be given puting out the parties and their function in the events concerned.

Points To Include

  • Mr Ribble bought the train from a friend, Stuart Stockton.
  • The train was capable to a hire purchase understanding between Mr Stockton and Crewe Credit.
  • After purchase, Mr Ribble took the train to Glossop Garage to be repaired.
  • Glossop Garage claim that Mr Ribble told them to ‘take offers’ on the train after transporting out the fixs. They sold the train to a 3rd party, Mr Marlow.
  • Mr Ribble denies that he asked the garage to sell the train and whilst it was still at the garage, being refurbished for Mr Marlow, Mr Ribble used the trim key to take the train and it is now stored in his ain garage.

3.Title TO THE CARAVAN

This centres on whether the outstanding hire purchase understanding in favor of Crewe Credit means that Mr Ribble did non obtain good rubric when he purchased the train from Stuart Stockton.

Points To Include

  • Outcome depends upon whether Roger Ribble was cognizant of the outstanding hire purchase understanding or non.
  • The Consumer Credit Act now incorporates the Hire Purchase Act. Under that legislative act, the first ‘innocent buyer ‘ of the train gets good rubric.
  • To be an ‘innocent buyer, ’ Mr Ribble must hold been incognizant that there was outstanding finance. Equally long as he did non and could non moderately have been expected to cognize, so he will hold rubric to the train.
  • If it goes to tribunal, factors that may be considered are that Mr Ribble states that he ‘should hold realised’ the train may be capable to engage purchase. He has besides bought and renovated autos before and he works for a motor magazine.
  • The tribunal may make up one’s mind hence that he could moderately be expected to cognize about the hire purchase.

4.CAUSES OF ACTION

Deal with each party in bend:

Claim Against Stuart Stockton

  • If Roger Ribble did non acquire good rubric to the train, he can action Stuart Stockton for breach of contract if Crewe Credit take back the train.
  • Prior to actioning, Mr Ribble should see whether Mr Stockton would hold the financess to pay him, on the facts this seems improbable.

Liability To Stuart Stockton

  • Stuart Stockton does non look to hold any evidences to claim against Mr Ribble.
  • If Roger Ribble was unaware of the outstanding hire purchase understanding and he bought the train in good religion, he will hold obtained good rubric as the first guiltless buyer.
  • Mr Ribble could action Crewe Credit if they later remove the train.
  • If Roger Ribble knew or had intuitions about the outstanding hire purchase understanding and didn’t ask inquiries so he would non be an guiltless buyer.
  • Ownership would non so go through to him and Crewe Credit could so get down legal proceedings if he fails to present up the train.
  • Mr Ribble left the train with Glossop Garage for fixs.
  • Glossop Garage claim that Mr Ribble instructed them to consequence the fixs and so ‘take offers’ to sell the train on his behalf.
  • Glossop Garage sold the train to Mr Marlow.
  • Mr Ribble could action Glossop Garage for breach of contract since he contracted for fixs and they sold the train alternatively.
  • The tribunal would hold to see the footings of the contract and the fortunes of the error made in selling it.
  • Mr Ribble had requested fixs to be carried out which teaching canvassers province have been done but non yet paid for.
  • Mr Ribble used his trim key to reclaim the train from the forecourt of the garage. Following the instance of R V Turner ( No. 2 ) ( 1971 ) Mr Ribble may good confront condemnable proceedings for larceny as a consequence.
  • In R V Turner ( No. 2 ) , the suspect took his auto to a garage to be repaired. The garage had about finished the fixs and left the auto outside the premises. The suspect so used his trim key to recover the auto. His strong belief for larceny was upheld by the Court of Appeal despite the fact that the auto ‘belonged’ to him.
  • Whether or non condemnable proceedings are instigated, Mr Ribble may be apt to pay for the fixs undertaken by Glossop Garage prior to their sale of the train.

Claim Against Mr Marlow

  • Mr Ribble would non look to hold evidences for a claim against Mr Marlow.

Liability To Mr Marlow

  • Mr Marlow bought the train from Glossop Garage and his most likely resort would be to claim against them instead than Mr Ribble.
  • His claim against the garage would be made under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for transgressing the implied term as to title contained in subdivision 12.

5. Following Stairs

Instruct canvassers how to continue including:

  • Finding out more about Mr Ribble’s statement that he should hold realised that the train might be capable to engage purchase – why should he hold realised?
  • Investigate what happened to the money that Mr Marlow paid to Glossop Garage for the train.
  • Find out the cost of fixs made by Glossop Garage at Mr Ribble’s petition.
  • Discover the whereabouts of the train certification.

6. Decision

  • Summarize your advice and stop the sentiment saying that you would be happy to rede farther every bit required.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *