ABSTRACT
This article explores common law rescission within the sale of goods. It examines the proposition that the rescinding-claimant has a kind of legal, proprietary interest (a ‘power in rem’) to rescind a voidable contract of sale and revest legal title to the goods. This power is considered to be ‘proprietary’ because it binds third-party recipients who cannot plead good faith purchase, and it survives the recipient’s insolvency. The problem is that the data does not fit the theory; in truth, there is every reason to believe that the claimant has only a personal claim to rescind the contract of sale, with legal title revesting by operation of law thereafter. As a result of this analysis, we must: (i) reject the main academic account of this area of law (the ‘dual power’ analysis); and (ii) revisit the treatment of common law claims to rescind in the insolvency context.
€
Adam Reilly, Voidable title in the sale of goods: One power to rescind, or two?, King’s Law Journal. Published online: 16 October 2024.
Leave a Reply