But it doesn't seem to me to matter whether the buyer is buying the

premises alone or the premises and its contents.

If all he is buying is the premises free of any contents, his correct

course of action is to require the seller to remove any contents left

behind. If he chooses to destroy the contents that is his responsibility.

If I buy a house and when I move in find it is full of ugly furniture I

never agreed to buy, my correct course is to require the seller to remove

it, not burn it in my front garden. The seller must remove it regardless

of whether the furniture is his, or furniture he was storing for his

brother.

I can see that the defendant's right to use his land may be said to

conflict with the claimant's right to the goods, creating a privilige to

destroy them which would not otherwise exist. If the goods are a nuisance

or an unreasonably interfere with your use of land then it may be ok to

destroy them after taking reasonable steps to locate the owner. Here the

claimants moved in and after some cursory enquiries of the seller just

scrapped the lot.

Rob

> I tend to agree with Andrew.  His thesis is given added force by the

> decision in Moffatt v Kazana (1968), where it was held that title to cash

> hidden in the loft of a house was not included in the conveyance of title

> to the fee simple of the house.

> Bill Swadling

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Andrew Tettenborn [mailto:A.M.Tettenborn@exeter.ac.uk]

> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:18 PM

> To: Robert Stevens

> Cc: William Swadling; obligations@uwo.ca

> Subject: Re: Conversion with a human face

>

> On 24/02/2010 11:51, Robert Stevens wrote:

>> Ignoring abandonment, I wonder if this decision is right.

>>

>> The earlier case relied upon is AVX Limited v. EGM Solders Limited.

>> There

>> C rejected a consignment of red widgets supplied by D which were to be

>> redelivered. Unfortunately a mistake was made so that not only the boxes

>> of red widgets but also boxes of valuable green widgets were sent back.

>> D,

>> not realising that the contents of the boxes were anything other than

>> the

>> rejected red widgets, scrapped the lot.

>>

>> In such a situation there is no conversion because the relevant

>> intention

>> cannot be shown. D didn't intend to do anything with respect to the

>> destroyed green widgets, they never knew they existed.

>>

>> Robot Arenas is not the same because the defendants did intend to scrap

>> the tv show set. Reasonably, but mistakenly, detroying someone else's

>> goods is a tort. If I smash up your car, reasonably but mistakenly

>> thinking it is mine, I am a tortfeasor.

>>

>> I would have thought that the proper analysis should have been that the

>> defendant should have been liable, but that the analysis should not stop

>> there. The seller of the premises was (presumably) contractually

>> undertaking that they had title to sell anything left on the premises,

>> in

>> which case the defendant has a claim over against the seller for the

>> liability incurred in destroying something they thought they had bought.

>> If the sellers were (unusually?) not undertaking that they had the right

>> to sell what was left on the premises, the defendant's correct course of

>> action should have been to insist that the sellers remove the set from

>> the

>> hangar, rather than simply choosing to destroy someone else's goods.

>>

>> I always rather liked Robot Wars on telly.

>> Rob

>>

>>

>>> On 23/02/2010 15:38, William Swadling wrote:

>>>

>>>> Andrew,

>>>>

>>>> This is fascinating.  I don't suppose you have a copy of the judgment?

>>>>

>>>> Best,

>>>>

>>>> Bill

>>>>

>>>> -----Original Message-----

>>>> From: Andrew Tettenborn [mailto:A.M.Tettenborn@exeter.ac.uk]

>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:35 PM

>>>> To: obligations@uwo.ca

>>>> Subject: Conversion with a human face

>>>>

>>>> A very ordinary situation lay behind a decision of Colin Edelman QC in

>>>> the QBD on 8 February this year. You buy a commercial building (here

>>>> an

>>>> old RAF station) and find it's full of stuff (actually an old

>>>> film-set)

>>>> when you take over. Are you liable in conversion if you then trash the

>>>> stuff, assuming -- wrongly -- that no-one cares about it?

>>>>

>>>> This is a difficult one. The fact that you're an involuntary bailee

>>>> won't help: the fact that you don't have positively to look after

>>>> goods

>>>> thrust on you doesn't allow you deliberately to destroy them.

>>>> Nevertheless Edelman manages to say you may escape even here, by

>>>> confirming yet another hole in strict liability in conversion. A

>>>> person

>>>> in involuntary  possession of goods who reasonably believes (having in

>>>> a

>>>> suitable case made enquiries) that he's entitled to deal with them,

>>>> e.g.

>>>> because they've been abandoned, is protected from liability. In the

>>>> event the defendant escaped on this ground.

>>>>

>>>> There's also a helpful suggestion (yet again) that abandonment of

>>>> goods

>>>> is possible in English law, and if shown destroys title in the same

>>>> way

>>>> as derelictio did in Rome.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> All the best

>>>>

>>>> Andrew

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>> On Bailii (sorry: I ought to have given the case name. It's Robot

>>> Arenas

>>> Ltd&  Anor v Waterf1eld&  Anor [2010] EWHC 115 (QB)).

>>>

>>> Best

>>>

>>> A

>>>

>>> --

>>> Andrew M Tettenborn

>>> Bracton Professor of Law, University of Exeter

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Snailmail:

>>>

>>> Law School

>>> University of Exeter

>>> Rennes Drive

>>> Exeter EX4 4RJ

>>> England

>>>

>>>

>>> Phone:

>>>

>>> Tel:             01392-263189 (int +44-1392-263189)

>>> Fax:             01392-263196 (int +44-1392-263196)

>>> Cellphone:       07870-130528 (int +44-7870-130528)

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> LAWYER, n.

>>> One skilled in circumvention of the law. (Ambrose Bierce, 1906).

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

> Doesn't this argument run into a few difficulties? If I sell a building,

> the normal inference is that I'm selling real estate, not chattels. And

> if I'm not selling chattels at all, it's a bit odd that I should be

> regarded as guaranteeing title to chattels that may be there.

>

> There's also a practical point. It's all very well giving the buyer a

> claim over against his seller. But the seller is likely to be pretty

> uninterested in stirring his stumps -- after all, he's just got shot of,

> and been paid for, a piece of realty he didn't want. Must we really say

> that buyers have to hold onto apparent junk pending its removal by a

> seller who isn't interested, or risk liability to the owner and then the

> prospect of pursuing the same uninterested seller for an indemnity?

>

> On reflection I rather like the immunity in the Robot Arena case. But if

> you don't, it seems to me the obvious answer is an extension of the

> right of disposal under the 1977 Act, to cover those coming into

> occupation of land.

>

>

> Andrew

>

> --

> Andrew M Tettenborn

> Bracton Professor of Law, University of Exeter

>

>

>

> Snailmail:

>

> Law School

> University of Exeter

> Rennes Drive

> Exeter EX4 4RJ

> England

>

>

> Phone:

>

> Tel:             01392-263189 (int +44-1392-263189)

> Fax:             01392-263196 (int +44-1392-263196)

> Cellphone:       07870-130528 (int +44-7870-130528)

>

>

>

> LAWYER, n.

> One skilled in circumvention of the law. (Ambrose Bierce, 1906).

>

>

>

--

Robert Stevens

Professor of Commercial Law

University College London