Rowland v Divall
A buyer who receives goods to which the seller had no title can recover the whole price for total failure of consideration, even after using them for months.
Facts
Mr Rowland, a car dealer, bought a car from Mr Divall for £334, and resold it. Four months later, it turned out that the car had been stolen before Mr Divall bought it, and the police took it from the buyer and returned it to the true owner. Mr Rowland repaid his buyer, and sued Mr Divall for the price he had paid. Mr Divall argued that Mr Rowland and his buyer had had the use of the car for four months, so he should not have to repay the whole price.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Rowland could recover the whole price. Atkin LJ said that the whole object of a sale is to transfer property from one person to another, and that the buyer had not received any part of what he had bargained for, which was the property in the car, not merely its use. There was a total failure of consideration, because the seller was in breach of the condition implied by section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act that he had the right to sell, so the buyer was entitled to recover the price in full, without any deduction for use.
Related cases on implied terms: title, description, quality and fitness
- Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470
- Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
- Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1
- Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85
- Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685
- Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564
- Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31
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.
