Title
The cases stated here may no longer be relevant but they may provide the reader with a different perspective on their situation, on the facts
Nemo Dat – can title to stolen property be acquired? Seemingly not as Nemo dat quod non habet – ‘no one can give what they do not have’; someone who steals gains possession of the taken item, not title. In turn, they can pass possession, not title. The title rests with the original owner, the person from whom the property was taken.
Costello vs Derbyshire Police 2021 – (summary) If the property believed to be stolen, cannot be identified, who can be approached as a victim, who has a better claim to title than the person (suspect) found in possession of it?
Derbyshire Constabulary’s legal department was concerned about the situation and set about trying to promote “Lord’s Law”. In brief, it was considered a vehicle purchaser should be required to undertake further due diligence pre-purchase of a vehicle, thereby evidencing their ‘innocent purchaser’ status. A single meeting on the subject at Derbyshire QH, attended by the writer, did not see the suggestion progress. A 2025 FoIA request for information about the intentions revealed (unsurprisingly), ‘no information held’.
Gough and Another v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: CA 2 Mar 2004 – a dispute about ‘suspected’ stolen vehicle parts.
Webb vs. THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF MERSEYSIDE 1999. the arguments again were related to …’in the absence of any evidence that anybody else is the true owner, once the police right of retention comes to an end, the person from whom they were compulsorily taken is entitled to possession‘.
Lewis & Averay (1971) – Can title to property obtained by fraud be acquired?
Finance & Title
Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings – effectively, it matters not whether a finance company fails to register their interest with a MARS member, they retain title to the vehicle.
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson – [2003] UKHL 62. English contract law case decided in the House of Lords, on the subject of mistaken identity as a basis for rescission of a contract. The case has been the subject of much criticism in failing to effectively clarify the area of mistake to identity (Wikipedia)
Police Conduct
‘Section 66 PACE‘ – Leaving property with an innocent purchaser:
“Property must not be retained by the police except in the circumstances outlined in paragraph 2.1. Officers must make use of the Section 66 PACE certificate and where possible leave, property with its possessor. Officers, who are uncertain if the property should be left with its possessor, should use the guidance notes in Appendix C attached or if further information is required, contact the Area D/I or APO before seizing the property.” 2005 Warwickshire police
Further information can be found here.
Condition
- If a vehicle is described in a way that omits material history or creates a misleading impression, liability can arise.
- Silence can be misleading. You do NOT need an explicit false statement; failing to disclose something material can be enough.
- Professional sellers are held to a higher standard
Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams (1957) is a landmark English contract law case on the distinction between contractual terms and mere representations. It established that whether a pre-contractual statement is a binding term depends on the parties’ relative expertise and objectively demonstrated intention. It relates to a vehicle sale.
Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd (1965) is an English Court of Appeal decision on implied terms as to quality under the (then) Sale of Goods Act 1893, in the context of a second-hand car. The case is frequently cited for Lord Denning MR’s robust view that buyers of used cars must expect defects, and for limiting the scope of the implied condition of merchantable (now “satisfactory”) quality where a known defect has been disclosed.
Lambert v Lewis [1982] AC 225 is a leading decision of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords on the scope of a manufacturer’s liability in negligence and the effect of third-party misuse of defective products. The case is notable for clarifying the limits of a duty of care once an intermediate user becomes aware of a defect.
Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987) is a leading English contract law case concerning the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the standard of “satisfactory quality” in goods purchased from a seller. It clarified that even minor defects in a new product can render it unsatisfactory under consumer protection principles.
Clegg v Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) (2003) EWCA Civ 320 is a leading decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal on buyers’ rights to reject defective goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. It concerns a luxury yacht with an overweight keel and clarifies “satisfactory quality” and the time available to reject.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) is a United Kingdom statutory instrument that prohibits unfair commercial practices between businesses and consumers. It implements the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and remains a cornerstone of UK consumer protection law, even as aspects are transitioning to the 2024 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is a UK law that consolidates and simplifies key consumer protection rules. It defines the rights of consumers and obligations of traders regarding goods, services, and digital content, aiming to make the law clearer and enforcement more effective
Website Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational and research purposes only. While we strive to ensure that all content is accurate, up to date, and relevant, laws and regulations are constantly evolving. As such, the information presented may not reflect the most current legal standards or interpretations.
Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or a substitute for professional legal counsel. If you require legal assistance or advice specific to your circumstances, you should consult a qualified lawyer.
We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the content, nor for any reliance placed upon the information provided. The use of this website and its content is entirely at your own risk.
By continuing to use this website, you acknowledge and agree to these terms.