Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings
A finance company that failed to register a hire purchase agreement with a voluntary registry was not estopped from denying a dealer's title, because it owed no duty to register.
Facts
Moorgate let a car on hire purchase, but failed to register the agreement with HP Information Ltd, a voluntary registry used by finance companies and motor dealers. The hirer sold the car to Mr Twitchings, a dealer, who checked the registry, which showed no agreement. Moorgate sued Mr Twitchings for conversion. He argued that Moorgate was estopped from denying his title, because of its failure to register.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that Moorgate was not estopped. Lord Edmund-Davies said that estoppel by negligence requires a duty of care owed by the owner to the person who claims the estoppel, and that there was no duty on finance companies to register agreements with the voluntary registry. The registry did not represent that the car was free from hire purchase, but only that no agreement had been registered. Lord Wilberforce and Lord Salmon dissented.
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
- Eastern Distributors Ltd v Goldring [1957] 2 QB 600
- Folkes v King [1923] 1 KB 282
- Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
- Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
- 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.
