1990 WL 753984 Page 1

[1990] R.T.R. 91 Times, May 19, 1989 [1990] R.T.R. 91 Times, May 19, 1989

Copr. © West 2010 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

1990 WL 753984 Page 2
[1990] R.T.R. 91 Times, May 19, 1989 [1990] R.T.R. 91 Times, May 19, 1989

© 2010 Sweet & Maxwell

Debs v Sibec Developments

Also known as:

Queen's Bench Division

17 May 1989

Case Analysis

Where Reported [1990] R.T.R. 91;

Case Digest

Subject: Sale of goods

Keywords: Duty of care, Estoppel, Passing of property, Theft, Third parties

Catchphrases: Estoppel, theft of car, whether estopped from denying seller's right to sell car where delay in
reporting theft

Abstract: An owner of a vehicle is not estopped from denying a vendor's right to sell the vehicle where he
has been forced to sign a purported receipt at gunpoint. P, in the course of an armed robbery, was forced at gunpoint
to sign a purported receipt for GBP 46,000 in exchange for his Mercedes motor car. The vehicle was then sold on by
the robbers, being bought eventually by D. P, because of threats made by the gunmen, did not report the theft for a
month. Eventually the police recovered the vehicle and P sued for damages for conversion. D sought to rely upon
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.21(1), arguing that P's conduct in signing the receipt precluded any denial by him of
the seller's authority to sell.

Held, giving judgment for P, that the doctrine of estoppel by representation implied a representation
voluntarily made and P, having been forced to sign at gunpoint, should be in no worse position than one who had
been signed as a result of fraud. The robbers could not acquire good title and P was not prevented from denying their
authority to sell. There was no duty of care to prospective future purchasers of a stolen vehicle to report its loss to
the police Central Newbury Car Auctions v Unity Finance [1957] 1 Q.B. 371 considered, Farquharson Bros & Co v
C King & Co [1902] A.C. 325, Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1977] A.C. 890 and applied.

Judges: Simon Brown, J.Brown, Simon, J

Appellate History

Related Cases

Significant Cases Cited

considering

Copr. © West 2010 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

1990 WL 753984 Page 3
[1990] R.T.R. 91 Times, May 19, 1989 [1990] R.T.R. 91 Times, May 19, 1989

Central Newbury Car Auctions v Unity Finance

[1957] 1 Q.B. 371; [1956] 3 W.L.R. 1068; [1956] 3 All E.R. 905; (1956) 100 S.J. 927
CA

applying
Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings
[1977] A.C. 890; [1976] 3 W.L.R. 66; [1976] 2 All E.R. 641; [1976] R.T.R. 437; (1976) 120 S.J. 470
HL

applying
J&E Hall Ltd v Barclay

CA

applying
Farquharson Bros & Co v C King & Co
[1902] A.C. 325
HL

Cases Citing This Case

Legislation cited

Sale of Goods Act 1979 (c.54) s.21

Sale of Goods Act 1979 (c.54) s.21(1)

Journal Articles

Establishing an owner's right to stolen property.

Economic loss, Estoppel, Passing of property, Theft, Third parties
C.S.W. 1989, 28(10), 102-103

Economic loss and the duty to speak.

Economic loss, Estoppel, Passing of property, Theft, Third parties
J.B.L. 1989, Jul, 284

Property insurance.
Estoppel, Motor insurance, Theft, Title to goods
Ins. L.M. 1989, 1(5), 11-12

END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. © West 2010 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works