Pearson v Rose & Young Ltd
A mercantile agent who sells a car without its registration document, which the owner did not consent to his having, does not pass good title.
Facts
Mr Pearson left his car with a dealer, asking him to obtain offers for it. While Mr Pearson was in the office, he handed over the registration book, but the dealer obtained it by a trick, intending to sell the car fraudulently. The dealer sold the car with the registration book, and kept the money. The car passed to Rose & Young. Mr Pearson sued to recover it.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Pearson was entitled to the car. Denning LJ said that a car without its registration book was not a good, saleable article, and that the goods were the car and the registration book together. Mr Pearson had consented to the dealer having possession of the car, but not of the registration book, which had been obtained by a trick. A sale without the registration book would not have been in the ordinary course of business, so the sale with the book, which the owner had not consented to, did not pass good title under the Factors Act.
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
- Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1977] AC 890
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.
