This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Alf Vaughan And Co. V. Royscott Notes

Updated Alf Vaughan And Co. V. Royscott Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL

Approximately 620 pages

These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrased) I made during the Oxford BCL for the Restitution of Unjust Enrichment course....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Alf Vaughan and Co. v. Royscott Trust

Facts

The defendant owned a number of vehicles which were held by the plaintiff company under various hire-purchase and lease agreements. The hire-purchase agreements included options to purchase, and the lease agreements gave the plaintiff to the right to sell the vehicles as the defendant's agent subject to certain conditions. The defendant was entitled to terminate the agreements and recover possession of the vehicles on the appointment of an administrative receiver of any of the plaintiff's assets. The plaintiff subsequently went into administrative receivership, and the receivers wanted to sell its business, including the vehicles, as a going concern. They therefore offered to pay the defendant the remaining sums due under the hire-purchase and lease agreements, totalling approximately 34,000 (the settlement figure). However, the defendant terminated the agreements, and threatened to take possession of the vehicles unless the plaintiff paid it 82,000. The receivers accepted under protest, and duly paid the sum demanded by the defendant. In subsequent proceedings, the plaintiff sought to recover the difference between the settlement figure and the amount actually paid, contending that its agreement to pay the higher sum had been induced by duress to goods.

Receiver’s intention to sell as a going concern: It was the receivers' intention to sell the company's business as a going concern for which purpose they desired to be able to give any purchaser title to the vehicles, the subject of these agreements. This, the defendant understood. By 23 June 1997 the receivers had, indeed, obtained an offer for the business from Schreiber Filters Ltd (Schreiber) on the basis that they procure title to any lease or hire-purchase assets.

Defendant’s entitlement to possession: Each of the agreements did, indeed, entitle the defendant to terminate the order with or without notice upon the appointment of an administrative receiver of any of the company's assets. On the following day, therefore, the defendant sent agents to the company's premises to repossess the vehicles.

Holding

Causation

I have no doubt and find as a fact that the defendant's threat to recover the vehicles was a significant cause inducing the receiver to authorise Mr Nuttall's undertaking to pay 82,000. It is clear that but for the need to obtain a withdrawal of the recovery agents in time to complete the sale on 30 June the receiver would not have agreed to pay 82,000.

Payment was not voluntary

Nevertheless, having heard the evidence, I would find as a fact that the note made by Mr Wilson of the telephone conversation between Mr Delley and Mr Thomas is an accurate and sufficient account of the extent to which Mr Delley reserved the plaintiff's rights. He noted from what he was then told:

'Dave [Mr Thomas] told the receiver the full facts re. the undertaking, Royal Bank of Scotland, terms of agreement, etc. Receiver not happy, but says will pay by telegraphic transfer today and then send letter of complaint.'

This is in my judgment enough to show at least that the payment was not voluntary.

Was the pressure illegitimate?

Plaintiff did not have sufficient proprietary interest in the goods as against the defendants: The plaintiff's case, although not strictly as pleaded, is that the agreement under which the payment was made was obtained by duress of goods and was, therefore, avoidable. That is framed on the grounds that the pressure was illegitimate. That must be at the date when the agreement was obtained, namely 26 June. If the agreements had been restored at that date, the vehicles were still in the...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.

More Restitution Of Unjust Enrichment Bcl Samples