|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 29, 2019 23:40:00 GMT
A person’s goods cannot be seized without due legal process, regardless of any alleged contractual terms. Another person’s goods already in one’s possession may be held as lien on monies owed – is that what you are thinking of? An example would be a vehicle or vessel left for repair, where the vehicle or vessel may be legally retained pending the owed payment for the repair. That is an entirely different matter to being owed money and seizing goods in lieu thereof. A receiver appointed to recover unpaid commercial rent can seize goods, the unrepealed elements of the hire purchase acts still provide for summary repossession of goods if less than one third of the total due has been paid, goods can be summarily recovered upon default of a commercial goods lease. Planet was lawfully seized in light of the commercial rent agreement exhibited in the Planet thread. I could go on... Hire purchase. They can seize the vehicle because the HP provider owns it, title is not transferred until the payments are completed. It's a completely different situation |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 29, 2019 23:49:34 GMT
A person’s goods cannot be seized without due legal process, regardless of any alleged contractual terms. Another person’s goods already in one’s possession may be held as lien on monies owed – is that what you are thinking of? An example would be a vehicle or vessel left for repair, where the vehicle or vessel may be legally retained pending the owed payment for the repair. That is an entirely different matter to being owed money and seizing goods in lieu thereof. A receiver appointed to recover unpaid commercial rent can seize goods, the unrepealed elements of the hire purchase acts still provide for summary repossession of goods if less than one third of the total due has been paid, goods can be summarily recovered upon default of a commercial goods lease. Planet was lawfully seized in light of the commercial rent agreement exhibited in the Planet thread. I could go on... A Receiver in those circumstances is an authorised person acting under the specific empowerment of statute (Law of Property Act 1925); with hire purchases and commercial goods leases, title to the goods has not passed free and clear to the hire purchaser or lease holder, the hire company or lessor retains title to the goods (at least, with hire purchases, until paid in full), so they are not seizing another person’s goods; they are recovering their own. The fact that Planet was seized and removed cannot be justified by virtue of the commercial rent agreement; it could, however, legitimately have been held as lien on the debt owed. That is the process that should have been followed, and if CaRT had served notices according with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, and acted according to those, nobody could have had grounds for objection. They chose otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 30, 2019 0:10:58 GMT
A person’s goods cannot be seized without due legal process, regardless of any alleged contractual terms. Another person’s goods already in one’s possession may be held as lien on monies owed – is that what you are thinking of? An example would be a vehicle or vessel left for repair, where the vehicle or vessel may be legally retained pending the owed payment for the repair. That is an entirely different matter to being owed money and seizing goods in lieu thereof. . . . . . . . . . Planet was lawfully seized in light of the commercial rent agreement exhibited in the Planet thread. Oh, really, . . were that so, can you explain why C&RT deemed it necessary to exhibit false written evidence stating that the ship was seized in execution of a 'High Court warrant' in support of their application to have the Injunction preventing the sale of the ship lifted ? |
|
