Non- payment to a subbie

[Newboy]

her windows were not stolen goods, in fact she had paid for them in full to someone who DID have the right to sell them to her, but had failed to settle his bill.

The builder did not own the goods!

Title passes on payment and no payment had been made to the supplier!

They were not the builders goods to sell.

Something like this (either in this order, or in reverse depending on payment terms)

1) Householder pays builder
2) Builder pays window fitters
3) Window fitters pay window manufacturer

However, according to the article the window manufacturer had not been paid therefore the goods are the legal property of the manufacturer.

Regardless of who has paid who, if the supplier hasn't been paid then the goods are still their legal property.

stolen goods are a different thing entirely, and the police will take them is simply because they are stolen goods, nothing to do with titles.

Nothing to do with title is a ridiculous statement!

Title is the legal ownership of something, if you have title to the goods then you own them. If you don't have title then they are not yours!

 

[AronSearle]

3 seconds on google = first link result =

But it would be unusual for you to succeed, no matter how well-drafted your retention of title clause. Even if the clause is upheld in court, you do not have the right to enter the premises of the third party to recover your goods.

Stop talking poop newboy.

 

[cajar]

what about tradesmen who work off 30 day credit accounts, fit the stuff, get paid, then settle their account then newboy.

 

[noseall]

what about tradesmen who work off 30 day credit accounts, fit the stuff, get paid, then settle their account then newboy.

"the goods will remain the property of Smiths etc until account settled in full"

 

[cajar]

guys get into cash flow problems all the time yet you don't hear of builders merchants going round customers sites to tear materials back out of the fabric of the building, even with this amazing clause.

 

[noseall]

guys get into cash flow problems all the time yet you don't hear of builders merchants going round customers sites to tear materials back out of the fabric of the building, even with this amazing clause.

Nevertheless, it does not effect the ownership of the goods. They belong to neither the homeowner nor the builder until the account is settled.

 

[Newboy]

Well at least one person understands the concept of "title" and ownership of the goods!

3 seconds on google = first link result =

But it would be unusual for you to succeed, no matter how well-drafted your retention of title clause. Even if the clause is upheld in court, you do not have the right to enter the premises of the third party to recover your goods.

Stop talking poop newboy.

I think the vital words there are - "IT WOULD BE UNUSUAL"

and if you my first post in the thread, you will see that I said - "UNUSUAL POLICE RESPONSE"


For those of you in the trade and who may trade with, for example, Jewsons, you might want to read the back of the sales invoice next time you have one to hand

Particularly clause 7 - "Title & risk"

7.1 Risk in the goods shall pass to you when the goods are delivered

7.4 We shall be entitled, at any time, to recover any or all of the goods in your possession to which we have title and for that purpose, we, our employees or agents may, with such transport as is necessary, enter upon any premises occupied by you, or to which you have access and where the goods may be or are believed to be.

But to all of those who clearly know better than I do (having being involved in recovery of goods more than once in commercial premises, including being accompanied by the police force on one occasion and having being challenged by the police on one occasion) and to those who believe the police are wrong and think that major companies spend time and money putting together T&Cs then I defer!

If you're really bored and have a Travis Perkins invoice to hand, have a read at clause 5 - especially 5.1 & 5.2

Both TP and Jewsons have specific clauses to allow for the goods to be resold before title has passed from them to you.

Happy reading!

Edit: typo corrected and Jewsons copyright acknowledged

 

[AronSearle]

Scenario D: The debtor has sold your goods, in their original state

If your goods have been sold by the debtor, in their original state, your retention of title clause may purport to give you the right to recover your goods from the third party buyer.

Whether that right is enforceable depends on the application of the specific wording in your retention of title clause to the specific circumstances. But it would be unusual for you to succeed, no matter how well-drafted your retention of title clause. Even if the clause is upheld in court, you do not have the right to enter the premises of the third party to recover your goods.

You are also unlikely to succeed if, in fact, you knew the debtor was going to sell your goods before you were paid, even if your retention of title clause forbids this.

So trespass = Check.

Contract unlikely to be worth more than toilet paper, because you knew the goods would be sold before payment = Check.

Contracts regarding the 3rd party are not law, they are just pieces of paper.

 

[Newboy]

Well, as you are clearly more versed in this stuff than me you must be right!

I'll go back to the people I worked with and let them know that we were wrong! (albeit successful in reclaiming goods!)

Could you drop the police involved in this case a quick note to let them know they were wrong too!

 

[Newboy]

Whether that right is enforceable depends on the application of the specific wording in your retention of title clause to the specific circumstances.

You're answering your own questions!

 

[Brigadier]

Well, as you are clearly more versed in this stuff than me you must be right!

I'll go back to the people I worked with and let them know that we were wrong! (albeit successful in reclaiming goods!)

Could you drop the police involved in this case a quick note to let them know they were wrong too!

Being "successful" does not make one "right" (as in "in the right").

Ever backed down when a thug has shouted you down?

 

[Newboy]

So:

Despite the police attending in the case that started this thread and deciding that no crime was committed.

Despite personal experience of "Retention of title" clauses being effective

Despite most major companies using retention of title clauses in their contracts

Despite having personally go through this stuff with two police officers who were called to a site dispute - ended with successful (and legal) recovery of our property.

Despite me (in the capacity of 'agent') attending a site accompanied by police officers - which led to the arrest of the third party for attempted fraud (in simple terms).

You still believe that the window suppliers have broken the law?

Interesting to note that the only person who has been arrested is the husband of the woman in the story when he visited the window suppliers!

Also interesting is that the window company is being portrayed as the bad boys here - what happened to the money the builder was paid and why didn't he pay his supplier?

 

[AronSearle]

You still believe that the window suppliers have broken the law?

They trespassed.

Black and white.

Even if the clause is upheld in court, you do not have the right to enter the premises of the third party to recover your goods.

Police failed to do their duty.

Could you drop the police involved in this case a quick note to let them know they were wrong too!

icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif

Because of course the police never make mistakes and fail to enforce the law, like stopping the rape of 1500 girls in Rotherham

/insert smug smiley.

Despite me (in the capacity of 'agent') attending a site accompanied by police officers - which led to the arrest of the third party for attempted fraud (in simple terms).

So a completely different situation then.......

 

[Newboy]

OK then - I admit defeat! - Clearly you must be right!

Thanks for all your advice - I'll be sure to pass it onto the LAWYERS we used. & West Midlands Police

PS The attempted fraud was based on title claims and selling on goods that the third party did not have title to......... so ....... not a completely different situation then.

If you fancy testing your view of the law, please feel free to contact me, enter into a contract involving title to goods and then breaking the contract.

 

[Brigadier]

OK then - I admit defeat! - Clearly you must be right!

Thanks for all your advice - I'll be sure to pass it onto the LAWYERS we used. & West Midlands Police

PS The attempted fraud was based on title claims and selling on goods that the third party did not have title to......... so ....... not a completely different situation then.

If you fancy testing your view of the law, please feel free to contact me, enter into a contract involving title to goods and then breaking the contract.

I'm not knocking you Newboy, but if you rely on the Police (especially "on the ground" rozzers) for legal advice, you're on shifting foundations, IMO.