Transfer of title by a non-owner

The general rule is that a seller of goods cannot obtain a better title to such goods than that of the person from whom they were bought.

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) says, in section 24 Sale by person not the owner

“when goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by the owner's conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell.”

There are some notable exceptions to this rule;

Estoppel

“Where the owner of goods is by their conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell”, the buyer obtains good title.

An owner may be precluded from denying a seller’s authority by reason of their (deceitful, negligent, fraudulent) conduct which, expressly or impliedly, constitutes an unambiguous representation to the buyer that the seller has his authority to make the sale.

Sale under a voidable title

Where the seller of goods has a voidable title, for example a title gained through fraud, but the title has not been avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods provided they’re bought in good faith and without notice of the seller’s defect of title.

A person who obtains goods by way of fraud can pass good title because their title is voidable, not void. Therefore a person who obtains goods by way of fraud can pass a title to a bona fide recipient who acts in good faith and presents value for the property.  The original owner then only has rights against the fraudster and not the new “owner”.

Sale by a buyer in possession:

The bona fide purchaser of goods from a buyer who obtained possession of the goods with the consent of the original seller obtains a good title to them

The original seller must have been lawfully entitled to sell the goods.

A purchaser from a buyer in possession only acquires a good title under the statutory provision where the purchaser receives the goods in good faith and without notice of the rights of the original seller of the goods.

o          The onus of proving such is on the purchaser.

o          Notice may be actual or constructive.

o          It is insufficient for the original seller to contend that by making further inquiries the purchaser could have discovered that the buyer in possession of the goods who sold them had no right to do so, unless of course there was something obviously suspicious such as to put the purchaser on inquiry.

Where the goods being sold are a motor vehicle subject to a security interest, the legal position of the bona fide purchaser will depend on whether the security interest has been registered in the national Personal Property Securities Register established under the Personal Properties Securities Act 2009 (Cth).

For more information contact our office on 1300 334 566

Vicarious liability – ‘Am I liable for damage caused by my employees?’

The relevant question to ask is whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor. This involves consideration of a range of factors.

Not every factor will be relevant in every case, nor will all be given the same weight.  Control (that the employer has over the worker) remains the central element. 

Other relevant factors include:

1. Mode of remuneration;

2. Provision and maintenance of equipment;

3. Obligation to work;

4. Hours of work;

5. Provision of holidays;

6. Deduction of income tax;

7. Delegation of work by the employee;

8. Whether uniform provided;

9. Provision of training.

An employer is liable for the conduct of an employee committed in the course of employment.

If the person who committed the liability was an independent contractor and not an employee, then the employer will not be vicariously liable for that conduct unless a non-delegable duty exists.

Independent contractors

The person who employs an independent contractor will only be liable for that contractor’s conduct if the employer owed a personal duty of care to the victim and that duty was a non-delegable duty of care. A non-delegable duty is a duty of care which the court regards as being unable to be discharged or ‘outsourced’.

Example: An employer company hires an independent contractor to operate a forklift, taking pallets from a warehouse to an awaiting truck. The forklift driver, desperate to get home decides to speed things up. Manoeuvring at twice the usual speed, the contractor hits an employee of the company. The employee may bring an action against;

• The independent contractor for negligent forklift operation,
• The employer company for negligently failing to provide a safe working environment, notwithstanding that the employer is seemingly faultless.

Where there is no non-delegable duty, an employer is not liable for the conduct of an independent contractor, even if that party was undertaking duties for the employer.

The words used to describe the relationship are not definitive of the legal nature of the relationship (just because they name themselves principal and contractor does not mean the law sees it as such), it is a matter for the courts to decide objectively.

Where an employee is lent by one employer to another employer, the company who retains control will be vicariously liable. It is not sufficient that the new employer is in control of payment, if all other forms of control remain with the original employer.

Was the conduct committed during the course of employment?

If it is established that the person who committed the act was an employee then the next question to be addressed is whether the act was committed in the course of his/her employment.

An act or omission is still considered to be in the course of employment if it is either a wrongful mode of committing an authorised act or a wrongful act actually authorised by the employer

If an employee takes an opportunity during employment to use time or resources for personal purposes the employer is not liable. This is referred to as the “frolic” doctrine   If it is argued that the employee was on a frolic, both the purpose and extent of the deviation must be considered (for example, where a driver deviated slightly off route to get refreshment from a hotel, the employer was still held liable). If the employee is engaged on employer business and on personal business at the same time, the employer may still be liable.

An express prohibition by the employer of a wrongful act will not necessarily be a defence to the employer if the employee’s act was still a mode of doing what the employee was employed to do.

An employer may be vicariously liable for both intentional and unintentional acts committed by an employee.

For a more thorough consideration of this complex area of law, or if you would like to know whether you are an employee or an independent contractor, make an appointment to speak with one of our experts about your position and rights.

Land estates and Waste

The relationship between life tenants and persons with a vested interest as remainder can be quite complex, so let’s use some examples.

Margaret is a retiree who lives alone on her beautiful estate. Being concerned with the preservation of her family, in creating her Will she leaves her home to her daughter Julia for life and then to her granddaughter Emily. The property has a standing of approximately 300 trees, each centuries old with an estimated value of $10,000 each.

After her mother passes away, Julia decides to harvest the trees. She calls in bulldozers and has the entire reserve knocked down to make way for a giant swimming pool and tennis court. The value of the land falls greatly.

Given that Emily possesses a future interest in the estate, it may be possible for her to claim damages against her mother for this wanton act of waste.

Waste is any act which alters the nature of the land, whether for the better or for the worse. A tenant for life shall not commit voluntary waste. Voluntary waste is a positive act of injury to the property. For example:

•      pulling down or altering buildings,
•      opening a new pit or mine and
•      cutting timber

If the Will creating the life interest grants the interest “without impeachment of waste” or words to like effect, or the life tenant has a licence or other right to commit waste, then voluntary acts of waste which do not constitute equitable waste are permissible.

If the settlement or Will does not grant such a right and no right to commit waste has been granted to the life tenant, they will be liable in damages to the holder of the reversion or remainder interest. In this case, that person is Margaret’s granddaughter Emily.

To qualify Emily’s interest as a vested remainder and thereby give her access to a legal remedy, the following conditions must be satisfied;

1. 1.    The estate in remainder and the particular estate which precedes it must be created by the same instrument (the Will that gives Emily a future interest in the property must be the same Will which gives her mother the estate for life),
2.  The estate in remainder must become vested in possession immediately upon the termination of the prior estate (ie there must be no condition to be fulfilled before Emily can take the estate other than the termination of her mother’s interest),
3.  The person or persons who are to take the estate in remainder must be ascertained as at the date of the grant.

If something you have read here may apply to you or someone you know, make an appointment to speak with one of our experts.