Lastly, one may also observe that if the first interpretation is correct, it is
somewhat odd, given that the legislature has now made explicit the
inapplicability of the statutory market overt rule in Singapore, for the
judiciary to move in the opposite direction by expanding its common law
equivalent.
II. THE EXPANDED RULE
A. Its scope
The scope of the expanded rule is unclear from the judgment. For that
reason, it is difficult to set out its limits and its requirements. Given this,
and the fact that the expanded rule was intended as a sort of derivative of
the English market overt rule, it is proposed instead to examine how each
of the main requirements of the English market overt rule is modified
under the expanded rule.
The first, it will be recalled, is that the sale must be made in a ‘market
overt’, a term which refers (a) to a place (b) which has acquired the legal
status of a market overt. The second is that the goods must be of a typenormally sold in that market. Under the expanded rule, it would appear
that it suffices if there is, loosely speaking, a ‘regular and open market’ for
the goods in question. The term ‘market’ is used to denote not a specific
locality but, it seems, a commercial state of affairs, namely, the existence
of supply and demand. In Caterpillar, a member (called PW8’ in the
judgment) of the gang of thieves had apparently some experience in the
sale and disposal of spare parts. He found the defendant company listed
in the Yellow Pages and contacted their sales director. He represented
himself as a director of ‘Unibone Enterprises’, a company about which the
judgment tells us very little. The negotiations were conducted on the
telephone and at the defendants’ office. The goods were delivered by PW8
to the defendants’ premises. Although the sales were not made in any sort
of market-place, it was held that there existed in Singapore ‘a regular and
open market’ for the goods. This conclusion was apparently drawn from
the fact that it was well known in the trade that the spare parts in issue
were frequently bought in Singapore from independent suppliers (both in
and out of Singapore). The market (in the conceptual sense of supply and
demand) was open and regular, it seems, because most in the trade knew
of the existence of and traded with such independent suppliers. It is unclear
how seriously the requirement of a ‘regular and open market’ was intended
as an obstacle to a buyer’s acquisition of title; the looser it is interpreted,
the easier it will be for the buyer to obtain a good title
Lastly, one may also observe that if the first interpretation is correct, it is
somewhat odd, given that the legislature has now made explicit the
inapplicability of the statutory market overt rule in Singapore, for the
judiciary to move in the opposite direction by expanding its common law
equivalent.
II. THE EXPANDED RULE
A. Its scope
The scope of the expanded rule is unclear from the judgment. For that
reason, it is difficult to set out its limits and its requirements. Given this,
and the fact that the expanded rule was intended as a sort of derivative of
the English market overt rule, it is proposed instead to examine how each
of the main requirements of the English market overt rule is modified
under the expanded rule.
The first, it will be recalled, is that the sale must be made in a ‘market
overt’, a term which refers (a) to a place (b) which has acquired the legal
status of a market overt. The second is that the goods must be of a typenormally sold in that market. Under the expanded rule, it would appear
that it suffices if there is, loosely speaking, a ‘regular and open market’ for
the goods in question. The term ‘market’ is used to denote not a specific
locality but, it seems, a commercial state of affairs, namely, the existence
of supply and demand. In Caterpillar, a member (called PW8’ in the
judgment) of the gang of thieves had apparently some experience in the
sale and disposal of spare parts. He found the defendant company listed
in the Yellow Pages and contacted their sales director. He represented
himself as a director of ‘Unibone Enterprises’, a company about which the
judgment tells us very little. The negotiations were conducted on the
telephone and at the defendants’ office. The goods were delivered by PW8
to the defendants’ premises. Although the sales were not made in any sort
of market-place, it was held that there existed in Singapore ‘a regular and
open market’ for the goods. This conclusion was apparently drawn from
the fact that it was well known in the trade that the spare parts in issue
were frequently bought in Singapore from independent suppliers (both in
and out of Singapore). The market (in the conceptual sense of supply and
demand) was open and regular, it seems, because most in the trade knew
of the existence of and traded with such independent suppliers. It is unclear
how seriously the requirement of a ‘regular and open market’ was intended
as an obstacle to a buyer’s acquisition of title; the looser it is interpreted,
the easier it will be for the buyer to obtain a good title
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""