From: | Thomas, Sean R. (Dr.) <srt10@leicester.ac.uk> |
To: | Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk> |
Barry Allan <barry.allan@otago.ac.nz> | |
obligations@uwo.ca | |
Date: | 17/06/2014 06:58:42 UTC |
Subject: | Re: Electronic disabling and tracking devices |
Greetings from Dunedin, New Zealand (or the 7th floor if you happen to be upstairs)
We have recently had several significant amendments made to our credit contracts legislation, one of which is about the use of "disabling devices" used to either prevent the use of consumer goods or track their location. The legislation only controls these if the relevant credit contract provides for their use.
This sparked a thought: what about devices which are not contracted for? The problem is that if there is no protection offered by the general law, then creditors will simply bypass the statutory protections for debtors arising from contractually agreed devices by not seeking agreement.
What if a financier puts a device into a car while it is still at the dealership and before a transfer of ownership (so there should be no possibility of trespass)? When the device is turned on so the vehicle is immobilised in the debtor's garage, is that conversion? What if it is not a car, but software in a laptop or phone makes it stop working when payments are not kept up? Or the vehicle is not immobilised, but can be found at all times because of a GPS tracking device? I can't see how that would be conversion, and it is highly unlikely to breach privacy, at least on the state of NZ privacy laws.
Any thoughts would be welcome.
Barry Allan
Andrew Tettenborn Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law
|
Andrew Tettenborn Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol |
Lawyer (n): One versed in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce)
***