Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11718/22036
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Pathak, Akhileshwar | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-03T02:09:55Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-06-03T02:09:55Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019-02-12 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11718/22036 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Contracts term of commercial sale of goods have a ‘title retention clause’, preventing the transfer of ownership till the seller is fully paid. The unpaid seller gets the right to repossess the goods from the buyer. Exigencies of businesses have led to introduction of further clauses allowing the buyer to use or sub-sell the goods even before the transfer of ownership. The United Kingdom Court of Appeal judgment in the Caterpillar Case brings out the effects of the contradictions of a title retention clause qualified by the right of the buyer to use or sub-sell. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | BP0428; | - |
dc.subject | Unpaid sellers | en_US |
dc.subject | Transfer of Ownership | en_US |
dc.subject | Sale of goods | en_US |
dc.title | The Two Sides of the Title Retention Clauses: The Caterpillar Case | en_US |
dc.type | Cases and Notes | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Cases and Notes |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in IIMA Institutional Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.