법률영어 번역 내공 100 드립니다.
-
게시물 수정 , 삭제는 로그인 필요
법률 영어입니다. 번역해 주시면 내공 100 드립니다.
The buyers bought 500tons of wheat to be shipped on board the challenger between 16th and 31st December, 1925, c.i.f. Avonmouth.
The goods formed part of a consignment of 1000 tons whichalready belonged to the seller. The buyers paid for the wheat on 6th February, 1926, and shortly afterwards the sellers were adjudicated bankrupt. When the vessel arrived at Avonmouth, the 500tons had not been appropriated to the contract and the sellers' trustee in bankruptcy refused to deliver the wheat, so the buyers claimed specific performance of the contract.
Held, by the court of appeal, that a decree of specific performance would not be granted, for the goods were not . "speccific" as required by s.52 of the Sale of Goods Act.
It is necessary, therefore, to examine the meaning and effect of s.52 in relation to the facts of the present case. Section 52 Remains a section which is to be put in force upon the application of the plaintiff. It provides one of the remedies of the buyer, and it does not give correlative rights to the seller. Its operation remains limited.
It is not possible to overlook the original purpose and scope of its predecessors, which was to meet a difficulty and hardship suffered by a buyer in respect of specific goods, and the section reproduces the old law in a codifying statute. It has not changed the law, The section applies to all cases where the goofs are specific or ascertained, whether the property has passed to the buyer or not:see James Jones&Sons Ltd. v. Earl of Tankerville...
The problem to be solved comes back to the question: Were the 500tons specific
goods? They were never appropriated, and it is admitted that the regal property has not passed, for these were "future goods" within s. 5 of the aAct in respect of which no property passed to the purchaser : see ss. 16, 17, ans 18, r. 5. There was no ascertainment or identification of the 500tons out of the cargo in bulk of the motor vassel Challenger . The bankruptcy of the vendors does not, in my judgement, affect the question, though it may emphasise the hardship to the purchasers, for the question must be determined upon the rights of the parties under the contract upon the
arrival of the wheat.......
Considering the facts of the present cases in the light of the authorities to which
I have called attention, it is, in my judgement, not possible to hokd that the 500tons of wheat, ex motor vessel Challenger , were specific or ascertained goods, ans thus apecific performance would now be ordered as the remedy of the buyer under s. 52 of the Act Specific performance of a contract cannot be ordered unders. 52 unless the goods are "specific" or "ascertained" goods.
법률 영어입니다. 번역해 주시면 내공 100 드립니다.
The buyers bought 500tons of wheat to be shipped on board the challenger between 16th and 31st December, 1925, c.i.f. Avonmouth.
The goods formed part of a consignment of 1000 tons whichalready belonged to the seller. The buyers paid for the wheat on 6th February, 1926, and shortly afterwards the sellers were adjudicated bankrupt. When the vessel arrived at Avonmouth, the 500tons had not been appropriated to the contract and the sellers' trustee in bankruptcy refused to deliver the wheat, so the buyers claimed specific performance of the contract.
Held, by the court of appeal, that a decree of specific performance would not be granted, for the goods were not . "speccific" as required by s.52 of the Sale of Goods Act.
It is necessary, therefore, to examine the meaning and effect of s.52 in relation to the facts of the present case. Section 52 Remains a section which is to be put in force upon the application of the plaintiff. It provides one of the remedies of the buyer, and it does not give correlative rights to the seller. Its operation remains limited.
It is not possible to overlook the original purpose and scope of its predecessors, which was to meet a difficulty and hardship suffered by a buyer in respect of specific goods, and the section reproduces the old law in a codifying statute. It has not changed the law, The section applies to all cases where the goofs are specific or ascertained, whether the property has passed to the buyer or not:see James Jones&Sons Ltd. v. Earl of Tankerville...
The problem to be solved comes back to the question: Were the 500tons specific
goods? They were never appropriated, and it is admitted that the regal property has not passed, for these were "future goods" within s. 5 of the aAct in respect of which no property passed to the purchaser : see ss. 16, 17, ans 18, r. 5. There was no ascertainment or identification of the 500tons out of the cargo in bulk of the motor vassel Challenger . The bankruptcy of the vendors does not, in my judgement, affect the question, though it may emphasise the hardship to the purchasers, for the question must be determined upon the rights of the parties under the contract upon the
arrival of the wheat.......
Considering the facts of the present cases in the light of the authorities to which
I have called attention, it is, in my judgement, not possible to hokd that the 500tons of wheat, ex motor vessel Challenger , were specific or ascertained goods, ans thus apecific performance would now be ordered as the remedy of the buyer under s. 52 of the Act Specific performance of a contract cannot be ordered unders. 52 unless the goods are "specific" or "ascertained" goods.
#법률영어 번역
