Common Law Principle Deliverable State

Question: Describe about the Common Law Principle of Deliverable State. Answer: The principle of Nemo dat quad non habit meaning no one gives what he doesn't have is a common law principle that gives right to the first buyer over the second one on the pretext that the agent selling the goods to a third party has no right to sell it further. Therefore, in the present case Harris owns the carpet because of the following reasons: Bona fide purchaser: Harris is a Bona Fide purchaser and therefore she has the ownership of the carpet as she has paid the consideration, ownership has passed to Harris the moment she made the payment although there was no actual possession. Estoppel by negligence: estoppel applies on the seller as he owes a duty of care towards Harris and it was the sellers duty to protect the goods sold by him and there was negligence on the sellers part. In Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Hamblin, 1965 it was held that to prove estoppels by negligence it was necessary to prove that the seller had a duty of care against the buyer. Qui prior est tempore potior est jure: both the buyers are bona fide purchasers of the carpet, the second purchaser has an equal right as he bought it under the representation that the assistant has a right to sell and bought it in good faith, without notice of the fact that it was already sold. Therefore, in such situations according to the common law, as applied in the case of Rice v. Rice 1853, it was held that where there are equitable interests in all fairness and justice and it is assessed that both the buyers are equal in capacity then priority of time will be given. Therefore Harris being a bona fide purchaser and also since both Harris and Lewis have a right over the carpet equally as they are both bona fide purchasers therefore, the rule of Qui prior est tempore potior est jure (where priority in time of creation gives better equity) will apply. 6) You are Benners lawyer and Mr. Benner has come to you for advice. Advise Mr. Benner. It is advised that, the property did not transfer to Benner and therefore it is not his liability that the timber was damaged in fire. As per Section 21 of Sales of goods act, 1954, the goods are not transferred to the buyer until they are ascertained unless otherwise agreed (Section 22). In the present case the timber remains unascertained until it has been converted into a deliverable state, which includes cutting, trimming, packing as well as timber marking by Chen as was held by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of A.M.S. Equipement Inc. v. Case, 1999 6274 (BC SC). It was also held under similar circumstances that in such a case that unless it is agreed the risk remains with the vendor until the goods are delivered. If the delay in delivery is because of the fault of the vendor then the damage is to be borne by the vendor himself if something happens to the goods befire the goods are transferred even though the complete payment has been made. Hence, the timber was not yet in a deliverable state in the given situation and hence the ownership did not pass to Benner and therefore the damage caused to the timber is to be borne by Chen.