Difference between revisions of "Conditional Sales Contracts and Security Agreements (11:VI)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
The third party’s priority over the creditor ends if there is knowledge of the security agreement itself rather than knowledge that the sale constitutes a breach. Under s 1(2), “knowledge” is judged objectively rather than subjectively (i.e. would a reasonable person know?). | The third party’s priority over the creditor ends if there is knowledge of the security agreement itself rather than knowledge that the sale constitutes a breach. Under s 1(2), “knowledge” is judged objectively rather than subjectively (i.e. would a reasonable person know?). | ||
'''NOTE:''' Even if the creditor’s interest in the collateral does not continue because the third party purchaser takes title free of that interest, the creditor’s interest will continue in the proceeds of the sale by the debtor to the purchaser (s 28). | :'''NOTE:''' Even if the creditor’s interest in the collateral does not continue because the third party purchaser takes title free of that interest, the creditor’s interest will continue in the proceeds of the sale by the debtor to the purchaser (s 28). | ||
== E. Application of PPSA to Leases == | == E. Application of PPSA to Leases == | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Therefore, if the consumer does not get what he or she has paid for, that person may not be required to pay the loan back when pressed for payment by the assignee. Also, if the seller does not fulfil obligations under a warranty, the consumer will be able to resist payment. (See ''Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Geldart'', [1985] BCJ No 1973 and ''Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Kabatoff'', [1986] BCJ No 942) | Therefore, if the consumer does not get what he or she has paid for, that person may not be required to pay the loan back when pressed for payment by the assignee. Also, if the seller does not fulfil obligations under a warranty, the consumer will be able to resist payment. (See ''Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Geldart'', [1985] BCJ No 1973 and ''Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Kabatoff'', [1986] BCJ No 942) | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | |||