Kirkham v Attenborough
A person who receives goods on sale or return and pledges them adopts the transaction, so property passes to him and the pledgee obtains good title.
Facts
Mr Kirkham, a jewellery manufacturer, delivered jewellery to Mr Winter on sale or return. Mr Winter pawned some of the jewellery with Mr Attenborough, a pawnbroker, and did not pay for it or return it. Mr Kirkham sued Mr Attenborough to recover the jewellery, arguing that it still belonged to him.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Attenborough was entitled to keep the jewellery. Lord Esher MR said that, by pawning the jewellery, Mr Winter had done an act adopting the transaction, which was inconsistent with his being free to return it, so property in the jewellery had passed to him under the rule now in section 18, rule 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. He could therefore give good title to the pawnbroker. Mr Kirkham's remedy was to sue Mr Winter for the price.
Related cases on passing of property and risk
- Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep 240
- Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden [1949] 1 All ER 435
- Dennant v Skinner and Collom [1948] 2 KB 164
- Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 AC 74
- Healy v Howlett & Sons [1917] 1 KB 337
- Karlshamns Oljefabriker v Eastport Navigation Corp (The Elafonissos) [1982] 1 All ER 208
- Kursell v Timber Operators and Contractors Ltd [1927] 1 KB 298
- Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd [1986] PCC 121
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.
