Repo men and the law

Our man in Havana

Wrt this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055218849

Can repo men take a car from private property without a warrant from the courts?

Maximilian

My tort is a little rusty but if a repo man enters onto to private property without an invitation or a court order, he is tresspassing. I suppose you could sue him for that, for all the good it would do you. I doubt one could prove much damage from the tresspass itself, which is to mind, entirely seperate from the matter with the car.

Our man in Havana

I would assume only nominal damages of say 1 euro would result from the trespassing. I think there would be other issues where he takes the car from your property and it is still full of personal effects, cds, sat nav etc?

dermot_sheehan

It depends do you mean the sheriff's ballifs who seize personal property to satisfy a judgement? In such case their conduct is governed by the enforcement of judgements act 1926 and they need a court order.

If however it is a hire purchase arrangement it will be governed by the hire purchase contract and the restrictions in the hire purchase acts 1943-1963 on whether the lender could seize the relevant property. In most hire purchae contracts title to the good in question does not transfer to the borrower until the final payment is made, in that case the lender is just recovering their own property (but there are restrictions on this and the requirment to get a court order when more then a third of the sum outstanding is paid, pursuant to the hire purchase acts)


if an innocent third party buys property at market value, without notice (notice can be constructive, for example by not carrying out the appropriate enquieries and searches), they get the property free of the encumberance secured on it, that encumberance would transfer to the proceeds of the sale.

Our man in Havana

In our hypothetical situation:

A buys a car on hire purchase from a bank.

A sells car to a dealer for cash. A then stops making the payments to bank.

Dealer sells car to B. B is unaware of HP agreement that A had entered into.

Bank discover at some point that the car is now in the possession of B.

Can the bank send repo persons to B's house to seize the car?

ambro25

Bond-007 wrote: »

In our hypothetical situation:

A buys a car on hire purchase from a bank.

A sells car to a dealer for cash. A then stops making the payments to bank.

Dealer sells car to B. B is unaware of HP agreement that A had entered into.

Bank discover at some point that the car is now in the possession of B.

Can the bank send repo persons to B's house to seize the car?

Yes (at least in the UK, may be the same here).

Title to the car stays with the bank until the credit is repaid in full, therefore A sold the car without title, which never passed in law: the car was from the onset, and remains, noone else's but the bank's.

After the repo, it's up to B to recoup funds from Dealer, it's up to Dealer to recoup funds from A, etc.

That's one of the main reason behind the inception of HPI, as this A/B situation got endemic in the UK years ago.

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

In our hypothetical situation:

A buys a car on hire purchase from a bank.

A sells car to a dealer for cash. A then stops making the payments to bank.

Dealer sells car to B. B is unaware of HP agreement that A had entered into.

Bank discover at some point that the car is now in the possession of B.

Can the bank send repo persons to B's house to seize the car?

Note: I haven't read the linked post.

It seems to me that the Bank's only remedies are enforcement of the Hire Purchase agreement and / or an action in conversion against A.

Notwithstanding that, if the Bank did have good title as against B, I still don't think they are entitled to seize the car without a court order. Apart from trespass to the plaintiff's land, it is a tort (trespass to goods) for the Bank to interfere with B's possession of the car, even if the Bank owns the car. The appropriate course of action for the Bank, if they did own the car would be an action in Detinue or related torts. In such a case damages would be an appropriate remedy.

Tom Young

The main economic torts are: Conversion, Detinue, Passing Off, Injurious Falsehood, Liability of Bare Vendors and Deceit.

Conversion:

What: Defendant by any act denies the Plaintiff lawful title to the Plaintiff to those good.

Elements: Intention, Abuse of Right, Retention in Original State, Denial Of Plaintiff's Rights.

Remedy: Damages.

Cases: Johnson & Johnson v CP Security; Hollins v Fowler; and Tear v Freebody.

Detinue:

What: Supplement Breach of Contract. Wrongful refusal of Defendant to deliver up good of Plaintiff after a demand has been made for the by Plaintiff.

Elements: Plaintiff must prove D's retention of good was adverse and wrongful. Plaintiff must prove formal demand and a refusal to return then was made. Bailment (Involves agreement giving possession of goods pending payment by installation e.g., HP) if good originally placed in possession or custody of D. under bailment and not returned when bailment comes to an end, D. is liable if he has in fact lost the goods.

Damages: At time of trial;

Remedies: Money and Damages; Special Value [Money and Damages] + Return of Goods. D. maybe given benefit of money spent on goods.

Cases: Poole v Burns; Cullen, Allen & Co v Barclays;

Injurious Falsehood: **Olde Worlde Tort - Recent Australian Case involving Whirlpool and a web chat board.**

Lower the Property, Goods or Business in the estimation of others.

Requirements: Malice.

Test: Reasonable man test.

Damages: Inferred in most cases. Special Damages no longer need to be established.

Cases: Hubbuck v Wilkinson; Ratcliffe v Evans.

Liability of Bare Vendors:

Simple enough: Exceptions to general rule on implied warranties.

Passing off:

What: Damage to: Goodwill. Misrep, and Damage (implied)

Proofs: Misrep, By a trader, prospective customers, customers supplied or taken, calculated and causes damage.

Remedy: Injunction in general (interlocutory then others)

Deceit:

What: Proof of reliance by Plaintiff on statment of Defendant (either in guarantee, promise or contract). Liability for misleading statements.

Liability: Grounded on proximate relationship and dishonelty (subjective)

Recovery: Direct Consequences principle: Loss flowing from reliance, consequentially also.

Statements: Fact (of). Can be: Written, Oral, Implied or express, derived from conduct and omissions.

Cases: Peek v Gurney; Derry v Peak; Smith v Lynn; Gill v McDowell; Northern Bank Finance v Charleton.

Gill v McDowell was the case of the sale of 3 cows, including a Hermaphrodite Cow. Held: Deceit by omission, D. engaged in half-truths. The cow that was a hermaphrodite died.

Tom

johnnyskeleton

Those bear vendors deserve to be liable.

Tom Young

A hermaphrodite cow, who would have thought!

I bet her nickname was RITZY.

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

A hermaphrodite cow, who would have thought!

I bet her nickname was RITZY.

Some poor bull must have thought he was onto a good thing, until he brought her back to his field...

Tom Young

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Some poor bull must have thought he was onto a good thing, until he brought her back to his field...

Maybe they fenced! In the sword fighting context!