Need help identifying the relevant issue (Bailment?SOG)?

Discussion in 'Australian Law Students Forum' started by ConfusedStudentHelp, 20 April 2018.

  1. ConfusedStudentHelp

    Joined:
    18 April 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi guys/girls,

    I need help on identifying the relevant issues of law. Here is the scenario:
    X gives Y (owner of museum) a piece of painting to display at a museum, and gives authority to sell the painting it if there the price is right. Y sells the painting to Z, and Z allows Y to keep it at the museum until he can find a replacement (does bailment arise here?).

    However, 'K', the new manager of the museum , sells the painting, as he is unaware that it has already been sold.

    A few questions in this scenario:
    1. Does bailment arise? If so, is there a breach of duty of the bailee?
    2. Does the Sales of Good Act apply? If so, how does it apply?
    3. Does K have the authority to sell? Is he an agent or..?
    4. Who has ownership of the painting now?

    Thank you guys/girls!!
     
  2. Tim W

    Tim W Lawyer
    LawTap Verified Lawyer

    Joined:
    28 April 2014
    Messages:
    2,653
    Likes Received:
    581
    We are not in the habit of writing the whole of your answer for you.
    Perhaps if you post what you've already got, we may have some insights to offer.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. ConfusedStudentHelp

    Joined:
    18 April 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for letting me know.

    Okay here are my thoughts:
    1. Bailment occurs when one party accepts possession of the good knowing that it belongs to another. After the sale, Z has ownership and passes possession of the painting to Y (or the museum). Since Y will redeliver the painting back to Z on the condition that a replacement is found, i presume that there is bailment. Therefore, as the painting has been sold, there is a breach of duty by the bailee

    2. SOG applies when painting is sold to Z and the new purchaser.

    3.So the museum acts as a 'middleman' for collectors and artists. In that sense, the museum acts as an agent for the artist and the collectors. As K is the manager of the museum, i assume he would have the authority to sell the artwork (since hes an employee). Although, K has authority to sell the painting, that authority to sell was given by X and not Z. Therefore, he lacks authority?
    It would also seem like that K is also a mercantile agent, given that he is employed to sell goods, and the possession is entrust to him by the principal.

    4. Initially ownership is with X then moves to Z. Given that Z is the true owner of the painting. The rule of nemo dat suggest that the new purchaser does not have better title that Z. However, if the sale of the good is by a mercantile agent, is to a bona fida purchaser, then title would have passed. However, K does not have the authority to sell, so title remains with Z?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;