Akron Tyre Co Pty Ltd v Kittson - [1951] HCA 6

AKRON TYRE COMPANY PROPRIETARY

KITTSON AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. PLAINTIFFS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Personal Property-Assignment-Agreement to assign after-acquired chattels-

Passing of property in chattels when acquired. Hire-purchase-Motor vehicle--Accessories supplied with, or attached to, vehicle MELBOURNE,

" shall become part of " vehicle-New tyres attached to vehicle by irer-Passing Feb. 21, 22; of property in tyres to owner of vehicle. Bill of Sale-Assurance of personal chattels-" Articles capable of complete transfer

by delivery (either at the time of the making or giving of a bill of sale of the personal chattels specified in the bill or at any time thereafter) "-Instruments Acts 1928- 1936 (No. 3706-No. 4370) (Vict.), SS. 27, 30*.

The Instruments Acts 1928-1936

either absolutely or (Vict.) provides - -By S. 27: " Bill of

conditionally or subject or not subject sale includes

to any trusts, and whereby the grantee and other assurances of per-

or holder has power sonal chattels" " Personal chat-

or take possession of any property and tels' include goods furniture fixtures

effects comprised in or made subject and other articles capable of complete

to such bill of sale, shall be operative transfer by delivery (either at the

or have any validity at law or in time of the making or giving of a

equity until the same has been or is bill of sale of the personal chattels

filed in manner provided by specified in the bill or at any time thereafter)". By S. 30: 'No bill

82 CLR 478

By a hire-purchase agreement relating to a motor vehicle the hirer agreed to maintain the vehicle in good order and condition and to pay when due all moneys payable to any person in respect of any accessories supplied with or for or attached to the vehicle. Clause 12 of the agreement provided " Any accessories

supplied with or for or attached to " the vehicle " shall become part of the " vehicle.

Held that clause 12 applied to tyres attached to the wheels of the vehicle by the hirer in lieu of the tyres originally on the vehicle, so that the clause in conjunction with the hirer's substitution operated to pass the property in the substituted tyres to the other party to the agreement, the owner of the

Reeves v. Barlow, (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 436, at p. 442, applied. An agreement for the assignment of after-acquired chattels is not a bill of sale within the meaning of SS. 27, 30, of the Instruments Act 1928 (Vict.).

King v. Greig; Rechner, Claimant, (1931) V.L.R. 413, at pp. 440-442, approved.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Fullagar J.) affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The Economic Cash Buying Co. Pty. Ltd. (one of the plaintiffs in the action from which the appeal the subject of this report was brought) was the owner of certain motor vehicles. It let the vehicles on hire-purchase to one C. v. Vale under agreements the terms of which are hereinafter mentioned.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Akron Tyre Co Pty Ltd v Kittson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1951] HCA 6
Decision Date: 16 March 1951

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Akron Tyre Co Pty Ltd (the appellant) and The Economic Cash Buying Co. Pty. Ltd. and other individuals (the respondents) concerning the ownership of motor vehicle tyres. The respondent company had entered into hire-purchase agreements with one C. v. Vale for several motor vehicles. Vale subsequently removed the tyres from these vehicles and sold them to the appellant. The respondents claimed damages for conversion of these tyres, asserting that they had become the property of the respondent company under the terms of the hire-purchase agreements. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the appellant appealed the decision to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were: firstly, whether clause 12 of the hire-purchase agreements, which stated that "Any accessories or goods supplied with or for or attached to or repairs executed to the goods shall become part of the goods," operated to transfer the property in substituted tyres to the owner of the vehicles; and secondly, if clause 12 did have this effect, whether the hire-purchase agreements constituted a bill of sale under the Instruments Act 1928 (Vict.) and were therefore void for non-registration.

The High Court, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, held that clause 12 of the hire-purchase agreements was effective in passing the property in the substituted tyres to the owner of the vehicles as soon as they were attached. The court reasoned that the clause was intended to cover accessories and repairs, including replacements, and that the act of attaching the tyres to the vehicles, in conjunction with the agreement, constituted a "new act" sufficient to pass property in after-acquired chattels. Furthermore, the court determined that the hire-purchase agreements, particularly clause 12, did not constitute a bill of sale within the meaning of the Instruments Act 1928 (Vict.) because they did not describe specific, existing property and the Act's requirements for description and situation of property could not be met for after-acquired chattels. Therefore, the agreements were not void for non-registration.

Orders