Corn Mill Case Study

1919 Words8 Pages
Firstly, the provisions will be analyzed from The UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions’ point of view.
The Legislative Guide states that in a simple retention-of-title arrangement, the seller may retain title to the sold asset until full payment of its price. In most cases, the sale is immediate and it is only the transfer of title that is made conditional upon the payment of the full price. Even if the buyer possesses and uses the object of the transaction (and in some cases may even have the right to dispose of it), the buyer does not actually obtain rights regarding said goods until the purchase price is fully paid. Until that time, title to the asset still belongs to the buyer.
The retention of title clause needs
…show more content…
Cough Mill’s retention of title conditions provided that ownership of the yarn that it supplied remained with Clough Mill, as did the property in any goods manufactured from its yarn. The court decided that the supplier could not be expected to register a charge over its own goods when the customer had never obtained title to those respective goods. The court further added that even though in previous cases before the court it had been decided that if part of a retention of title clause failed the whole clause failed, the court considered this time that each part of a clause could be treated as a separate component and some parts may fail, other parts may be valid. The Court pointed out that the intentions of the parties were paramount and that it would do all that it could to ensure that effect was given to those…show more content…
(2) The owner of the good owes compensation equal to either the value of the manual labor, or the value of the materials used.”
This article regulates the situation when a person acquires the title over a mobile asset, person which used materials belonging to another person. Depending on the situation, either the owner of the materials or the one who manufactured the good will be prejudiced. To repair the prejudice, he will have the right to ask for compensation equal to either the value of the manual labor or the value of the materials used.
The first paragraph of the Terms and Conditions of XPN is valid, as it has no conditions for validity, being driven by the wish of the parties. The second paragraph, though, is invalid, and as such, Romanian Courts would override the wishes of the parties to the agreement. According to Article 598 of the Romanian Civil Code, the person which was prejudiced has the right only to compensation, not to subrogate themselves as the owner of the manufactured good. Romanian Civil Code states in article 601 that if the materials used to manufacture the goods cannot be separated, article 598 will be
Open Document