323:(UK)) and one reported case and turn to more difficult issues. It is however convenient to pause for a moment to consider why the answer must inevitably be negative, because the reasons for this answer are the same as those which stand in the way of the customer-s at every point of the case. It is common ground that the contracts in question were for the sale of unascertained goods. For present purposes, two species of unascertained goods may be distinguished. First, there are generic goods. These are sold on terms which preserve the seller's freedom to decide for himself how and from what source he will obtain goods answering the contractual description. Secondly, there are "goods sold ex-bulk". By this expression their Lordships denote goods which are by express stipulation to be supplied from a fixed and a pre-determined source, from within which the seller may make his own choice (unless the contract requires it to be made in some other way) but outside which he may not go. For example, "1 sell you 60 of the 100
379:
the problem, to which their
Lordships can see no answer, that the company did not do what it said. There never was a separate and sufficient stock of bullion in which a proprietary interest could be created. What the non-allocated claimants are really trying to achieve is to attach the proprietary interest, which they maintain should have been created on the non-existent stock, to wholly different assets. It is understandable that the claimants, having been badly let down in a transaction concerning bullion should believe that they must have rights over whatever bullion the company still happens to possess. Whilst sympathising with this notion their Lordships must reject it, for the remaining stock, having never been separated, is just another asset of the company, like its vehicles and office furniture. 1f the argument applies to the bullion it must apply to the latter as well, an obviously unsustainable idea.
337:(1870) LR 5 Q.B. 660 is the most prominent. Wiffen had a large quantity of barley lying in sacks in his granary, close to a railway station. He agreed to sell 80 quarters of this barley to Maris, without appropriating any particular sacks. Maris sold 60 quarters to Knights, who paid for them and received in exchange a document signed by Maris addressed to the station master, directing him to deliver 60 quarters of barley. This was shown by the station master to Wiffen who told him that when he got the forwarding note the barley would be put on the line. Knights gave a forwarding note to the station master for 60 quarters of barley. Maris became bankrupt, and Wiffen, as unpaid vendor, refused to part with the barley. Knights sued Wiffen in trover, to which Wiffen pleaded that the barley was not the property of the plaintiff. A very strong court of Queen's Bench found in favour of the plaintiff.
287:
Bank of New
Zealand on 11 July 1988, being owed money by Goldcorp Exchange Ltd, petitioned for the business to be wound up. It transpired that Goldcorp had not held anywhere near enough money for the members of the public, around 1000 people, who had supposedly bought gold with it, even though in their contracts they were entitled to delivery of the gold (in 7 days, for a fee) if they wished. The company also lacked enough assets to satisfy the debts to the bank. The members of the public alleged that the gold that remained in stock was entrusted to them. The bank argued that it did not, because the gold stocks had never been isolated; and that all the gold customers were unsecured creditors and that the bank's
345:"No doubt the law is that until an appropriation from a bulk is made, so that the vendor has said what portion belongs to him and what portion belongs to the buyer, the goods remain "in solido, and no property passes. But can Wiffen here be permitted to say, 'I never set aside any quarters?' .... The defendant knew that, when he assented to the delivery order, the plaintiff, as a reasonable man would rest satisfied - .. The plaintiff may well say, 'I abstained from active measures in consequence of your statement, and I am entitled to hold you precluded from denying that what you stated was true'."
130:
22:
373:(supra) does not enable a bulk to be conjured into existence for this purpose simply through the chance that the vendor happens to have some goods answering the description of the res vendita in its trading stock at the time of the sale - quite apart, of course, from the fact that if all the purchasers obtained a deemed title by estoppel there would not be enough bullion to go around.
412:
maintained and also because the floating: charge which, as the Court of Appeal held, took priority over the contractual claim, expressly referred to the contract under which the claim arose. Once again their
Lordships are fortified in their conclusion by the fact that the reasoning of Scott L.J. conforms entirely with the opinion at which they have independently arrived.
304:
promised title, a trust did not arise because there was no declaration of it. There was not enough gold to satisfy the claims, even though it was promised that the gold would be set aside. It was contrary to policy to imply a fiduciary duty simply because there was a breach of contract. It was also rejected that equity required any restitution of the purchase money.
365:
the bulk actually existed. The effect of Wiffen's representation was to preclude him from denying to the sub-purchaser, Knights, that he had made a sufficient appropriation from the fixed and identified bulk to give the intermediate purchaser, and hence
Knights himself, the proprietary interest sufficient to found a claim in
411:
1 N.Z.L.R. 257. 284, but not discussed since it was not then reported in full. This was a stronger case than the present, because the separate fund which the contract required the insolvent company to maintain would have been impressed with a trust in favour of the other party, if in fact it had been
364:
On this view, the bulk was the whole of the stock in Wiffen' s warehouse. This stock was therefore committed to the purchase to the extent that Wiffen could not properly have sold the whole of it without making delivery of part to his buyer. Another and more important aspect of the same point is that
398:
PCC 121. The facts of that case were not precisely the same as the present, and the arguments on the present appeal have been more far-reaching than were there deployed. Nevertheless their
Lordships are greatly fortified in their opinion by the close analysis of the authorities and the principles by
378:
Let it be assumed. however, that the company could properly be described as a fiduciary and let it also be assumed that notwithstanding the doubts expressed above the non-allocated claimants would have achieved some kind of proprietary interest if the company had done what it said. This still leaves
303:
The Privy
Council advised that the customers had no property interest in the gold, and therefore the bank could use it to satisfy its debts. The customers' purchase contracts did not transfer title, because which gold specifically was to be sold was not yet certain. Although Goldcorp's brochures had
314:
Their
Lordships begin with the question whether the customer obtained any form of proprietary interest, legal or equitable, simply by virtue of the contract of sale, independently of the collateral promises. In the opinion of their Lordships the answer is so clearly that he did not that it would be
286:
for customers wishing to invest in gold. Some gold was held for customers, but the levels varied from time to time. The company's employees also told customers that the company would maintain a separate and sufficient stock of each type of bullion to meet their demands, but in fact it did not. The
384:
For these reasons their
Lordships reject, in company with all the judges in New Zealand, the grounds upon which it is said that the customers acquired a proprietary interest in bullion. In the light of the importance understandably attached to this dispute by the courts of New Zealand, and the
273:
for guidance on how to treat the company's customers, and Thorp J refused the claims of most of the customers, leaving three categories to be settled on appeal. The outstanding issue was whether the customers had title to the gold on for them, and thus beneficiaries of a trust, or were merely
332:
A more plausible version of the argument posits that the company, having represented to its customers that they had title to bullion held in the vaults, cannot now be heard to say that they did not. At first sight this argument gains support from a small group of cases, of which
385:
careful and well-researched arguments addressed on this appeal, the Board has thought it right to approach the question afresh in some little detail. The question is not, however, novel since it has been discussed in two
English authorities very close to the point.
151:(1) Bryan Norreys Kensington and John Joseph Cregten (as the receivers of Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership) (2) Bank of New Zealand Appellants v(1) The unrepresented non-allocated claimants (2) Steven Paul Liggett and (3) James William Heppleston
39:
357:(1879) 5 QED 188 at page 212. Assuming that the decision was nevertheless correct, the question is whether it applies to the present case. Their Lordships consider that, notwithstanding the apparent similarities, it does not. The agreement for sale in
1069:
399:
Oliver J., and in other circumstances their
Lordships would have been content to do little more than summarise it and express their entire agreement. So also with the judgment delivered by
86:
474:
58:
65:
369:. The present case is quite different, for there was no existing bulk and therefore nothing from which a title could be carved out by a deemed appropriation. The reasoning of
361:(supra) was a sale ex-bulk, or at least it must have been seen as such, for otherwise Blackburn J's judgment would have contradicted his treatise in the passage above quoted.
72:
892:
54:
641:
437:
722:
467:
441:
79:
593:
1064:
691:
389:
254:
140:
460:
764:
400:
394:
906:
866:
420:
997:
416:
350:
201:
105:
1059:
1054:
551:
338:
258:
43:
349:
There may perhaps be a shadow over this decision, notwithstanding the high authority of the court: see the observations of
629:
934:
750:
802:
736:
684:
527:
32:
948:
840:
878:
656:
577:
816:
677:
590:
320:
316:
603:
270:
209:
129:
920:
617:
185:
778:
266:
963:
660:
250:
993:
968:
852:
515:
491:
424:
292:
288:
213:
708:
768:
607:
261:. It considers when there is sufficient certainty of subject matter to form a trust, and
924:
910:
806:
712:
567:
539:
1013:
740:
1048:
952:
563:
503:
262:
938:
856:
754:
440:', which concerned consumers who were held to have had a trust of assets under the
408:
307:
205:
896:
882:
647:
581:
246:
168:
435:
The outcome of the advice of the Board was not mirrored by the Supreme Court in
21:
265:. A company dealing in gold and other precious metals became insolvent and the
790:
452:
828:
282:
Goldcorp Exchange Ltd had a business of holding gold reserves in coins and
1070:
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from New Zealand
55:"Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership): Kensington v Liggett"
366:
283:
669:
324:
673:
456:
269:
appointed receivers under a debenture. They in turn asked the
15:
274:
unsecured creditors resulting from a breach of contract.
990:
Butterworths Student Companion Equity - Trusts and Wills
405:
Mac-Jordan Construction Ltd v Brookmount Erostin Ltd
229:
219:
197:
192:
180:
175:
164:
156:
146:
136:
122:
46:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
319:(New Zealand) (corresponding to section 16 of the
992:(2nd ed.). Butterworths. pp. 147–149.
312:
341:explained the matter thus, at pages 655-666:-
685:
468:
8:
643:In re Lehman Brothers International (Europe)
438:In re Lehman Brothers International (Europe)
444:that was designed to protect their savings.
315:possible simply to quote section 18 of the
692:
678:
670:
475:
461:
453:
442:Markets in Financial Instruments Directive
128:
119:
106:Learn how and when to remove this message
724:Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck
980:
255:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
186:Court of Appeal of New Zealand judgment
141:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
893:Space Ltd v Canadian Imperial Bank Ltd
765:Trustee of FC Jones & Sons v Jones
7:
630:Pearson v Lehman Brothers Finance SA
44:adding citations to reliable sources
395:In re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd
291:(a floating charge) took priority.
935:Brazil v Durant International Corp
907:Bishopsgate Investment Ltd v Homan
867:James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder
355:Simm v Anglo-American Telegraph Co
14:
552:Re London Wine Co (Shippers) Ltd
20:
1065:1994 in United Kingdom case law
407:BCLC 350 which is mentioned by
31:needs additional citations for
310:gave the advice of the Board.
259:Court of Appeal of New Zealand
1:
388:The first is the Judgment of
751:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
257:decision on appeal from the
803:Barlow Clowes Ltd v Vaughan
737:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
1086:
483:Certainty of subject cases
949:English unjust enrichment
945:
931:
917:
903:
889:
875:
863:
849:
837:
825:
813:
799:
787:
775:
761:
747:
733:
719:
705:
654:
638:
626:
614:
600:
588:
574:
560:
548:
536:
524:
512:
500:
488:
295:QC represented the bank.
234:
224:
188:High Court of New Zealand
127:
879:Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd
578:Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd
243:Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd
123:Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd
1060:1994 in New Zealand law
1055:English trusts case law
988:Irvng, Rebecca (1996).
841:Re Tilley's Will Trusts
591:Sale of Goods Act 1979
528:Re Golay’s Will Trusts
414:
347:
321:Sale of Goods Act 1893
317:Sale of Goods Act 1908
604:Re Harvard Securities
343:
214:Sir Thomas Eichelbaum
210:Lord Lloyd of Berwick
392:(as he then was) in
40:improve this article
817:Re Hallett's Estate
779:Sinclair v Brougham
495:(1789) 2 Bro CC 585
267:Bank of New Zealand
964:English trusts law
820:(1880) 13 Ch D 696
661:English trusts law
251:English trusts law
235:Tracing, certainty
1014:"Money Exchanges"
969:UK commercial law
959:
958:
853:Foskett v McKeown
667:
666:
519:(1854) 2 Drew 221
516:Palmer v Simmonds
507:(1849) 16 Sim 476
492:Sprange v Barnard
425:Thomas Eichelbaum
327:now on my farm".
293:Jonathan Sumption
289:security interest
239:
238:
116:
115:
108:
90:
1077:
1034:
1031:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1010:
1004:
1003:
985:
921:Boscawen v Bajwa
725:
694:
687:
680:
671:
644:
618:White v Shortall
477:
470:
463:
454:
371:Knights v Wiffen
359:Knight v. Wiffen
193:Court membership
132:
120:
111:
104:
100:
97:
91:
89:
48:
24:
16:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1018:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1000:
987:
986:
982:
977:
960:
955:
941:
927:
913:
899:
885:
871:
859:
845:
833:
821:
809:
795:
783:
771:
757:
743:
729:
723:
715:
709:Taylor v Plumer
701:
700:Tracing sources
698:
668:
663:
650:
642:
634:
622:
610:
596:
584:
570:
556:
544:
532:
520:
508:
496:
484:
481:
451:
433:
301:
280:
112:
101:
95:
92:
49:
47:
37:
25:
12:
11:
5:
1083:
1081:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1026:
1005:
998:
979:
978:
976:
973:
972:
971:
966:
957:
956:
946:
943:
942:
932:
929:
928:
918:
915:
914:
904:
901:
900:
890:
887:
886:
876:
873:
872:
864:
861:
860:
850:
847:
846:
838:
835:
834:
826:
823:
822:
814:
811:
810:
800:
797:
796:
788:
785:
784:
776:
773:
772:
762:
759:
758:
748:
745:
744:
734:
731:
730:
720:
717:
716:
706:
703:
702:
699:
697:
696:
689:
682:
674:
665:
664:
655:
652:
651:
639:
636:
635:
627:
624:
623:
615:
612:
611:
601:
598:
597:
589:
586:
585:
575:
572:
571:
561:
558:
557:
549:
546:
545:
540:Re Kayford Ltd
537:
534:
533:
525:
522:
521:
513:
510:
509:
501:
498:
497:
489:
486:
485:
482:
480:
479:
472:
465:
457:
450:
447:
432:
429:
417:Lord Templeman
335:Knights v Wiff
300:
297:
279:
276:
237:
236:
232:
231:
227:
226:
222:
221:
217:
216:
202:Lord Templeton
199:
198:Judges sitting
195:
194:
190:
189:
182:
178:
177:
173:
172:
166:
162:
161:
158:
154:
153:
148:
147:Full case name
144:
143:
138:
134:
133:
125:
124:
114:
113:
28:
26:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1082:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1050:
1040:
1030:
1027:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1001:
999:0-408-71557-X
995:
991:
984:
981:
974:
970:
967:
965:
962:
961:
954:
950:
944:
940:
937:
936:
930:
926:
923:
922:
916:
912:
909:
908:
902:
898:
895:
894:
888:
884:
881:
880:
874:
869:
868:
862:
858:
855:
854:
848:
843:
842:
836:
831:
830:
824:
819:
818:
812:
808:
805:
804:
798:
793:
792:
786:
781:
780:
774:
770:
769:EWCA Civ 1324
767:
766:
760:
756:
753:
752:
746:
742:
739:
738:
732:
727:
726:
718:
714:
711:
710:
704:
695:
690:
688:
683:
681:
676:
675:
672:
662:
658:
653:
649:
646:
645:
637:
633:EWCA Civ 1544
632:
631:
625:
620:
619:
613:
609:
608:EWHC Comm 371
606:
605:
599:
595:
592:
587:
583:
580:
579:
573:
569:
566:
565:
564:Hunter v Moss
559:
554:
553:
547:
542:
541:
535:
530:
529:
523:
518:
517:
511:
506:
505:
504:Boyce v Boyce
499:
494:
493:
487:
478:
473:
471:
466:
464:
459:
458:
455:
448:
446:
445:
443:
439:
430:
428:
426:
422:
418:
413:
410:
406:
402:
397:
396:
391:
386:
382:
380:
376:
374:
372:
368:
362:
360:
356:
352:
346:
342:
340:
336:
330:
328:
326:
322:
318:
311:
309:
305:
298:
296:
294:
290:
285:
277:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
244:
233:
228:
223:
220:Case opinions
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
174:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
139:
135:
131:
126:
121:
118:
110:
107:
99:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71:
67:
64:
60:
57: –
56:
52:
51:Find sources:
45:
41:
35:
34:
29:This article
27:
23:
18:
17:
1029:
1017:. Retrieved
1008:
989:
983:
933:
919:
905:
891:
877:
865:
851:
839:
827:
815:
801:
789:
777:
763:
749:
735:
721:
707:
640:
628:
616:
602:
576:
562:
550:
538:
526:
514:
502:
490:
436:
434:
431:Significance
415:
404:
393:
387:
383:
381:
377:
375:
370:
363:
358:
354:
348:
344:
339:Blackburn J.
334:
331:
329:
313:
308:Lord Mustill
306:
302:
281:
253:case by the
242:
241:
240:
225:Lord Mustill
206:Lord Mustill
181:Prior action
176:Case history
150:
117:
102:
93:
83:
76:
69:
62:
50:
38:Please help
33:verification
30:
925:EWCA Civ 15
911:EWCA Civ 33
807:EWCA Civ 11
713:EWHC KB J84
568:EWCA Civ 11
160:25 May 1994
1049:Categories
1041:References
791:Re Diplock
741:EWCA Civ 2
421:Lord Lloyd
401:Scott L.J.
351:Brett L.J.
271:High Court
171:, 1 AC 74
66:newspapers
829:Re Oatway
657:Certainty
621:NSWC 1379
594:ss 16-20B
543:1 WLR 279
531:1 WLR 969
390:Oliver J.
165:Citations
728:1 KB 321
449:See also
427:agreed.
423:and Sir
409:Gault J.
230:Keywords
96:May 2022
1019:27 July
953:tracing
939:UKPC 35
870:1 Ch 62
857:UKHL 29
844:Ch 1179
755:UKHL 12
555:PCC 121
263:tracing
157:Decided
80:scholar
1033:UKSC 6
996:
897:UKPC 1
883:UKPC 3
832:Ch 356
794:Ch 465
782:AC 398
648:UKSC 6
582:UKPC 3
367:trover
299:Advice
284:ingots
249:is an
247:UKPC 3
169:UKPC 3
82:
75:
68:
61:
53:
975:Notes
325:sheep
278:Facts
137:Court
87:JSTOR
73:books
1021:2017
994:ISBN
951:and
947:See
659:and
59:news
403:in
353:in
42:by
1051::
419:,
212:,
208:,
204:,
184:,
1023:.
1002:.
693:e
686:t
679:v
476:e
469:t
462:v
109:)
103:(
98:)
94:(
84:·
77:·
70:·
63:·
36:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
