H. C. OF A. Bankruptcy— Bill of sale— Validity, as against trustee in bankruptcy—Chattds— 1935-1930.Purported sale— Retention by vendor under.Jiire-purcliase agreement—Determim- timi of agreement— Recovery of chattels— Further disposition— Bankruptcy of Sy d n e y ,vendor— Title of trustee— Recovery of proceeds of sale— Bankruptcy Act 1924

1933 (No. 37 of 1924—A’o. 60 of 1933), secs. 25 (1), 90,

Bills of Sale Act

1935,

Oct. 30, 31.

1898 (N .S.W .) (No. 10 of 1898), sec. 5.*

M e l b o u r n e , Sec. 5 of the Bills of Sale Act 1898 (N.S.W.) applie.s to a trustee of a bankrupt 193(i estate sequestrated under the Bankrujitcy .4cf 1924-1933, so that a bill of sale

Feb. 13.

which is not registered according to the provisions of the Bills of Sale .Act has

no validity against him.

Kirh.

S tarke,

Dixon ami

MeTiernaii J.I.Under the joint effect of sec. 5 of the Bills of Sale Act 1898 (N.S.W.), and secs. 90 and 91 (i) of the Bankruptcy .Act 1924-1933, an unregistered bill of sale is, by relation back, avoided from the eoninienceraent of the bankruptcy when, but for the bill of sale, goods comprised therein would be the property of the bankrupt.

In connection with a business carried on by him G. purchased certam machinery from a company through its agent, the appellant, who guaranteed payment of fifty ])er cent of the pmxjhase price. G. was unable to pay * The Bills of Sale Act 1898 (N.S.W.) security for any debt, but .shall not

provides :—By sec. 3 :— “ In this Act inchule . . . transfers of goods in

the following words and expressions the ordinary course of business of any

shall, if not inconsistent with the subtrade or calling . . .” By sec. 5 :—“ No

ject m atter or context, have the bill of sale shall have any validity a.s

respective meanings hereby assigned against the official as.signee or trustee

to them, th a t is to say :— . . .of a bankrupt estate, unless it is duly

‘ Bill of sale ’ shall include bills of sale, registered in accordance with, and

assignments, transfers, declarations of within the time prescribed by this Act

trusts without transfer, and other . . . anil unless such registration

assurances of personal chattels, and also is renewed by the grantee, or his

. . . authorities, or licences to take

assignee, once at least in every twelve

possession of personal chattels as

months.”

r>4 C.L.R.] OF A U STR A LIA .

333

the money and consulted the appellant,…

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.

Continue reading Price v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Price v Parsons [1936] HCA 5
Case: [1936] HCA 5
Decision Date: 13 February 1936

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the validity of a bill of sale as against a trustee in bankruptcy in the matter of *Price v Parsons*. The dispute concerned chattels that had been purportedly sold by the bankrupt vendor under a hire-purchase agreement, with the vendor retaining possession. Following the determination of this agreement, the chattels were further disposed of before the vendor's bankruptcy. The trustee sought to recover the proceeds of this subsequent sale.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the initial purported sale, coupled with the vendor's retention of possession under a hire-purchase agreement, rendered the transaction invalid against the trustee in bankruptcy. The Court also had to determine whether the trustee was entitled to recover the proceeds of the chattels' further disposition, given the circumstances of their original transfer.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of bankruptcy law concerning the disposition of property. It was held that the retention of possession by the vendor under the hire-purchase agreement, following the purported sale, meant that the vendor retained a beneficial interest in the chattels. This interest was considered to be property divisible among the bankrupt's creditors. Consequently, the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to the proceeds derived from the subsequent disposition of these chattels, as they represented the value of the bankrupt's divisible property.

Orders