Kursell v Timber Operators and Contractors Ltd
Goods are not specific, so that property can pass on the making of the contract, unless they are identified and agreed on at that time.
Facts
Mr Kursell agreed to sell to the defendants all the merchantable timber in a forest in Latvia that met certain measurements, which the buyers were to cut within 15 years. Before much of the timber had been cut, the Latvian government nationalised the forest. The question was whether property in the timber had passed to the buyers, so that they bore the loss.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the property had not passed, because the timber was not specific goods. Scrutton LJ said that specific goods means goods identified and agreed on at the time the contract is made, and that it was not possible to identify which trees met the description of merchantable timber of the required size until they were measured and cut. The timber was therefore unascertained, and property could not pass until it was ascertained. The risk of the nationalisation therefore remained with the seller.
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
- Kirkham v Attenborough [1897] 1 QB 201
- 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.
