Comments on: Nemo dat v bona fide

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:41:42 +0000

Paul, I presume you’re talking about tracing. I’ve got confused recollections about the rule in Barnes v Addy, but I’ll wait for until LE (who is a bona fide trusts expert) to put in an appearance on your question.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:09:18 +0000

Edit: and when I say “property” I mean “chattels” not “real property”.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:08:24 +0000

It strikes me that your whole dilemma disappears if we remove the assumption that David Tennant is untraceable. He is, obviously, the party who has committed the wrong here (fraud/breach of contract/misrepresentation).

In any event, is there any UK/Australian common law principle which would ever allow a plaintiff to follow property into the hands of a bona fide purchaser without notice (genuine, not rhetorical, question)? Particularly if the plaintiff’s claim is civil, not criminal? I would be interested to read a case on the topic if so.

By: Jayjee

Jayjee — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:01:52 +0000

If that is the case, please believe me when I tell you I am not a BigPharma marketing exec!

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:14:36 +0000

Jayjee/JG – spam filter ate your comment

Probably because he mentioned prescription medicines of the kind spammers try to advertise on this and other sites through comments.

By: Andrew 3

Andrew 3 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:28:22 +0000

Just my 2 Cents worth from a non lawyer type.

I thought that in most states a licensed motor dealer had to guarantee clear title to the vehicle and even if he has taken all reasonable steps to guarantee title he still holds the can.
The original owner gets his car back, the new owner gets his money back and David Tenant keeps his head down.

That’s how I see it but then again I am not a Lawyer.

Clearly this only works for vehicles not chesterfield lounge suites although I find it hard to picture 2 guys standing in a driveway fighting over a Chesterfield

Cheers Andrew

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:19:44 +0000

The other thing, of course, is to remember that titles documents belong in the titles’ office, not in some drawer at the bank, or in your kids’ hands, or at a mate’s place so you can avoid stamp duty. Then you get the benefit of the registration system

JG: I’ve let that comment through, because it is interesting and (tangentially) relevant, but you are still in moderation on this blog and will remain so for the foreseeable.

By: ken nielsen

ken nielsen — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:12:01 +0000

Nice, thoughtful and stimulating post.
I can’t add anything except to say, yes, tis difficult.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:40:37 +0000

Jayjee/JG – spam filter ate your comment, but I’ve left it in moderation for the moment for SL to decide what to do given that this is her post – it has a rather long excursus into abortion.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:37:26 +0000

I know, I know, I should be resting. But I saw the words nemo dat and just couldn’t help reading the post.

The Torrens System goes the opposite way to the law of chattels – it protects the good faith purchaser at the expense of the original owner. That’s why you get all these cases where people find their land mortgaged out from under them by greedy children etc (moral of the story, never let your children have access to your land title documents). But this has its own injustices too. There’s times when one thinks that the title holder really ought to have made better checks, but the incentives of the Torrens system are set up so as to make checking redundant. But on the other hand, you don’t want to go back to a general law system, where everyone had to check the chain of title meticulously.