Eastern Distributors Ltd v Goldring
An owner who arms another with documents enabling him to represent that he owns or has authority to sell goods is estopped from denying the buyer's title.
Facts
Mr Coker owned a van, and wanted to buy a car, but could not raise the deposit. He agreed with a dealer, Mr Murphy, to give the impression to a finance company that Mr Murphy owned the van and the car, so that the finance company would buy both and let them to Mr Coker on hire purchase. Mr Coker signed documents that represented that Mr Murphy owned the van. The finance company bought the van from Mr Murphy. The scheme fell through, and Mr Coker sold the van to Mr Goldring. The finance company sued Mr Goldring.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the finance company had acquired good title to the van, so Mr Goldring had none. Devlin J, giving the judgment of the court, said that, under the exception in what is now section 21(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the owner is precluded by his conduct from denying the seller's authority to sell. By signing documents representing that Mr Murphy owned the van, Mr Coker had clothed Mr Murphy with apparent authority to sell it, and the finance company had relied on that representation. Mr Coker was estopped from denying the finance company's title.
Related cases on nemo dat and transfer of title by non owners
- Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corp Ltd v Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] 1 KB 322
- Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525
- Central Newbury Car Auctions Ltd v Unity Finance Ltd [1957] 1 QB 371
- Folkes v King [1923] 1 KB 282
- Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
- Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
- Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1977] AC 890
- National Employers' Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Jones [1990] 1 AC 24
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
