Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:46:43.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property Notions in the Law of Obligations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Geoffrey Samuel
Geoffrey Samuel
Affiliation:
Reader in Law, Lancaster University; Professeur Associé, Paris I & II. This article is a revised version of a paper written for the W.G. Hart Workshop, London, 1993.
Get access

Extract

When the coach carrying Mr. and Mrs. Houghland from Ternhill to Cheshire arrived at its destination, Mrs. Houghland's suitcase could not be found. The suitcase had been loaded on to one of Low's coaches at Southampton, but this coach had broken down at Ternhill and the luggage had been transferred by the passengers to the luggage compartment of a relief vehicle which had arrived some three hours later. The coach company was unable to trace the case or to explain how it had disappeared and in a subsequent claim, either for its value or for damages for its loss, the County Court found in Mrs. Houghland's favour. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , November 1994 , pp. 524 - 545
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1962] 1 Q.B. 694.

2 Sacco, R., La comparaison juridique au service de la connaissance du droit (Paris 1991), pp. 8, 10.Google Scholar

3 See, e.g., Diplock, L.J. in Morris v. CW Martin & Sons Lid. [1966] 1 Q.B. 716,Google Scholar 731. Winfield identifies Bracton as the vehicle: Winfield, P.H., The Province of the Law of Tort (Cambridge 1931), p. 92.Google Scholar

4 Building and Civil Engineering Holidays Scheme Management Ltd. v. Post Office [1966] 1 Q.B. 247,Google Scholar 261.

5 Gaius IV. 2–4; Digest 44.7.3pr.

6 For a discussion of the historical background see Ourliac, P. & de Malafosse, J., Histoire du droil privé: 2: Les biens (2nd ed., Paris 1971), pp. 50–54.Google Scholar

7 Weir, T., “Contracts in Rome and England” (1992) 66 Tulane Law Review 1615, at pp. 1636–1637.Google Scholar

8 Zimmermann, R., The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Cape Town 1990), p. 205.Google Scholar

9 Winfield, op. cit., p. 102.

10 Morris v. CW Martin & Sons Ltd. [1966] 1 Q.B. 716, 725–728.Google Scholar

11 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, s. 2.

12 Cf. The Mediana [1900] A.C. 113.

13 The Aliakmon[1986] A.C. 113.

14 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, s. 1 (c), (d).

15 See, e.g., The Albazero [1977] A.C. 774.

16 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, s. 1 (c), (d).

17 See, e.g., Cane, P., Tort Law and Economic Interests (Oxford 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 In re Norway's Application [1990] 1 A.C. 723.Google Scholar

19 Milsom, S.F.C., Historical Foundations of the Common Law (2nd ed., London 1981), pp. 260–261,Google Scholar 263, 275, 278.

20 Helby v. Matthews [1985] A.C. 471.Google Scholar

21 See, e.g., Davies, I., Textbook on Commercial Law (London 1992), pp. 15–43.Google Scholar

22 Samuel, G. & Rinkes, J., Contractual and non-contractual obligations in English law (Nijmegen 1992), pp. 22–24.Google Scholar

23 G. II. 14.

24 But cf., e.g., G. II. 38.

25 G. II. 14.

26 Justinian Institutiones III. 13pr.

27 D. 5.3.13.15.

28 See generally Jolowicz, H.F., Roman Foundations of Modern Law (Oxford 1957), pp. 61–81.Google Scholar

29 Samuel & Rinkes, op. cit., pp. 22–23.

30 D. 44.7.3pr.

31 Patault, A.-M., Introduction historique au droit des biens (Paris 1990), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., pp. 18–19.

33 Lawson, F.H. & Rudden, B., The Law of Property (2nd ed., Oxford 1982), pp. 76–104.Google Scholar

34 See generally, Weir, T., A Casebook on Tort (7th ed., London 1992), pp. 473–478.Google Scholar

35 The Winkfield [1902] P. 42.

36 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, s. 2 (2).

37 Ibid., section 3 (2).

38 See, e.g., Mitchell v. Ealing LBC [1979] Q.B. 1.

39 See, e.g., IBL Ltd v. Coussens [1991] 2 All E.R. 145.

40 See, e.g., Mitchell v. Ealing LBC [1979] Q.B. I.

41 Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v. Twitchings [1977] A.C. 890.Google Scholar

42 Gray, K., “Property in Thin A i r “ [1991] C.L.J. 252, 274.Google Scholar

43 [1966] Ch. 538 (C.A.).

44 [1968] A.C. 58.

45 [1991] 2 A.C. 548.

46 LordGoffatp. 574.

47 Ibid., p. 578.

48 “Tracing at common law, unlike its counterpart in equity, is neither a cause of action nor a remedy but serves an evidential purpose. The cause of action is for money had and received. Tracing at common law enables the defendant to be identified as the recipient of the plaintiffs money and the measure of his liability to be determined by the amount of the plaintiffs money he is shown to have received” per Millett J., in Agip (Africa) Ltd. v. Jackson [1990] Ch. 265, 285. Cf. Birks, P., “Persistent Problems in Misdirected Money: A Quintet” [1993] L.M.C.L.Q. 218, at pp. 230, 235–236.Google Scholar

49 Sinclair v. Brougham [1914] A.C. 398; cf. Birks, P., “English Recognition of Unjust Enrichment” [1991] L.M.C.L.Q. 473.Google Scholar

50 “A proprietary claim is one by which the plaintiff seeks the return of chattels or land which are his property, or claims that a specified debt is owed by a third party to him and not the defendant” per Staughton, L.J., in Republic of Haiti v. Duvalier [1990] 1 Q.B. 202, 213–214.Google Scholar

51 See, e.g., Stoke-on-Trent CC v. W. & J. Wass Ltd. [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1406;Google ScholarSurrey CC v. Bredero Homes Ltd. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361.Google Scholar

52 See Strand Electric & Engineering Co. Ltd v. Brisford Entertainments Ltd. [1952] 2 Q.B. 246.Google Scholar

53 Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v. Martin & Co. [1973] 1 Q.B. 27;Google ScholarSurrey CC v. Bredero Homes Ltd. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1361.Google Scholar

54 J. III. 13pr.

55 [1991] L.M.C.L.Q. 473 at p. 478.

56 Ibid., p. 486.

57 P. Birks [1993] L.M.C.L.Q. 218 at pp. 229–230.

58 See, e.g., Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v. Romalpa Aluminium Ltd. [1976] 1 W.L.R. 676.Google Scholar

59 Lord Macmillan in Readv. J. Lyons & Co. [1947] A.C. 156, 175.

60 See, e.g., Bergel, J.-L., Théorie générate du droit (2nd ed., Paris 1989), pp. 264–272.Google Scholar

61 See, e.g., Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson, V.C. in Kingdom of Spain v. Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd. [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1120,Google Scholar 1129.

62 The Code civil is said to have put an end to “the hesitations in the doctrine, the contradictions in the caselaw of the parlements, the recourse to equity in order to make up for the shortcomings in legislation” (Gazzaniga, J.-L., Introduction hislorique au droit des obligations, Paris 1992, p. 183).Google Scholar Would not these apparent weaknesses be seen as strengths by the English judiciary?

63 The Aldora [1975] Q.B. 748, 751.

64 Cf. D. 44.7.5.3.

66 Cf. G. IV. 33.

67 However the relationship between cause and benefit does not yet seem to have been fully worked out by the House of Lords: see, e.g., Dimskal Shipping Co. v. ITWF[1992] 2 A.C. 152.Google Scholar

67 If the action for money had and received had been treated as still being based on an implied contract, then the money would not have been recoverable since the contract would have been void by statute: Sinclair v. Brougham [1914] A.C. 398. This surely would have been the just result: for why should the casino be discriminated against simply on the basis that Parliament has refused to enforce gaming contracts? How can one say that casino profits are unjust when the activity itself is not illegal? Allowing property notions to enter the law of obligations via the law of restitution is to emphasise dominium (or not, depending upon how one interprets the idea that tracing is, well, whatever it is) at the expense of obligatio. Who allowed a partner to walk off with bags full of cash to the Playboy club? Why blame the Flayboy club when one should be looking for professional incompetence?

68 Milsom, op. cit. pp. 262–265.

69 See, e.g., Damon SA v. Hapag-Lloyd [1985] 1 W.L.R. 435.

70 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 Q.B. 256.

71 And in English law, as in French law, contract can of itself act as a means of transferring rights in rem: Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 18.

72 Ourliac & de Malafosse, op. cit., pp. 50–54.

73 See, e.g., Rowland v. Divall [1923] 2 K.B. 500.

74 See, e.g., Bolton v. Mahadeva [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1009.

75 See, e.g., White & Carter (Councils) Ltd. v. McGregor [1962] A.C. 413.

76 Cf. Gray, op. cit. note 42 above, pp. 305–307.

77 See, e.g., Ginossar, S., Droit réel, propriété et créance (Paris 1960).Google Scholar

78 Ibid. pp. 35–36.

79 Friedmann, W., Law in a Changing Society (2nd ed., Harmondsworth 1972), pp. 93–118.Google Scholar See also Gray, op. cit. note 42 above.

80 H.F. Jolowicz, op. cit. note 28 above, p. 67.

81 Patault, op. cit. note 31 above, pp. 219–220.

82 Arnaud, A.-J., Pour une pensee juridique européenne (Paris 1991), pp. 197–202.Google Scholar

83 Patault, op. cit. note 31 above, p. 248.

84 “When one talks of the ‘modern’ epoch it is to designate the period which extends from the end of the Middle Ages until the French Revolution. Historians talk next of the ‘contemporary period’; but legal and political philosophers and theorists have now started to talk confidently of post-modernism to describe the time we are now entering, which suggests that, with regard to intellectual thought at least, they think we are not yet fully out of the influence of modernist times”: Amaud, op. cit., p. 102.

85 See, e.g., Book 3 art. 326.

86 Book 3. However the distinction between res corporales and res incorporales is maintained (see Book 3: art. 2) and there are separate books on rights in rem and in personam.

87 Cf. Jacquemin, A. & Schrans, G., Le droit economique (3rd. ed., Paris 1982), pp. 96–124.Google Scholar

88 Cf. Friedmann, op. cit., p. 97.

89 Patault, op. cit. note 31 above, p. 18.

90 O. Kahn-Freund, Introduction to Renner, K., The Institutions of Private Lav and Their Social Functions (London 1949), p. 33.Google Scholar

91 Patault, op. cit. note 31 above, p. 153.

92 Cf. Patault, op. cit. note 31 above, pp. 223–225.

93 Code civil art. 1384.

94 D. 6.1.9, 13.

95 Friedmann, op. cit. note 79 above, p. 94.

96 Lawson, F.H., The Rational Strength of English Law (London 1951).Google Scholar

97 Lord Fraser in Moorgate Mercantile Ltd v. Twitchings [1977] A.C. 890,925.

98 See, e.g., Esso Petroleum v. Southport Corporation [1956] A.C. 218;Google ScholarCambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather P.l.c. [1994] 2 W.L.R. 53.Google Scholar

99 Omne autem ius quo utimur vel adpersonas pertinet veladres velad actiones: G. I.8.

100 G. II. 10–11.

101 D. 6.1.9, 13.

102 Diplock, L.J. in Letang v. Cooper [1965] 1 Q.B. 232, 242–243.Google Scholar

103 Dubouchet, P., Semiotique juridique (Paris 1990), pp. 144–145.Google Scholar

104 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss. 180, 182, 194.

105 [1978] Ch. 122, 144–145, emphasis added.

106 LonrhoUd v. Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1982] A.C. 173,187/w Lord Diplock; and see Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 194.

107 The French lawyer might use the law of persons rather than the law of property: Sériaux, A., Les personnes (Paris 1992), pp. 66–70.Google Scholar

108 Legrand, P., “Legal Traditions in Western Europe: The Limits of Rationality” (seminar paper delivered at the University of Trento1, Italy, 02 1993).Google Scholar

109 See, e.g., F.v. Wirral MBC[1991] Fam. 69.

110 Samuel, G., “Epistemology, Propaganda and Roman Law: Some Reflections on the History of the Subjective Right” (1989) 10 Journal of Legal History 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

111 F. v. Wirral MBC [1991] Fam. 69.

112 In re KD[m&]A.C. 806.

113 Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland[1993] 2 W.L.R. 316.

114 Mitchell v. Ealing LBC [1979] Q.B. 1.

115 See, e.g., X Ltd v. Morgan-Grampian Ltd [1991] 1 A.C. 1.

116 In re KD [1988] A.C. 806, 825 per Lord Oliver.

117 Casselt & Co. Lid. v. Broome [1972] A.C. 1027, 1114 per Lord Wilberforce.

118 Weir, op. cit. note 7 above, at pp. 1616, 1646–1647.

119 “ See Birks op. cit. notes 48 and 49 above.

120 See, e.g., Hedley, S., “Contract, Tort and Restitution; or, On Cutting the Legal System Down To Size” (1988) 8 Legal Studies 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

121 Some of these points are developed in Samuel & Rinkes, op. cit. note 22 above, pp. 231–266; Samuel, G., “Epistemology and Legal Institutions” [1991] International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 309Google Scholar.

122 “ The teacher has to master the contents of what is to be taught. This [involves] …a more general vision of the discipline to be taught, in terms of the organising principles, the areas of thought, the conceptual threads. It is a question of seeing the discipline not as a patchwork without unity, each element corresponding to a concept, but as an expressive mosaic made up of concepts each relating one to another”: Astolfi, J.-P. & Develay, M., La didactique des sciences (Paris 1989), p. 114.Google Scholar

123 Birks [1991] L.M.C.L.Q. 473 at p. 745

124 Atias, C., Épistémologie du droit (Paris 1994), p. 107.Google Scholar

125 See generally on this, Kelley, D., The Human Measure: Social Thought in the Western Legal Tradition (Harvard 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

126 Cf. Susskind, R., Expert Systems in Law (Oxford 1987), pp. 154–155.Google Scholar

127 Dreyfus, H., What Computers Still Can't Do (Cambridge Mass., 1992).Google Scholar

128 Bower, T., The Guardian, 9 December 1992.Google Scholar