Show Summary Details
Page of

Printed from Oxford Law Trove. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 21 April 2024

p. 594. Retention of title clauseslocked

p. 594. Retention of title clauseslocked

  • Eric BaskindEric BaskindSenior Lecturer in Law, Liverpool John Moores University Visiting Research Fellow, Oxford Brookes University

Abstract

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on retention of title clauses, also known as reservation of title clauses, in sale of goods contracts. It explains how retention of title (or Romalpa) clauses are especially useful in cases where the buyer becomes insolvent and then stresses the importance of properly incorporating a retention of title clause into the contract of sale. The chapter examines the 1976 Romalpa case and its influence on retention of title cases. It considers ‘all-liabilities’ clauses in contracts of sale of goods and concludes by discussing criticisms against retention of title clauses and how, in practice, they might fail. The chapter discusses the 2014 Court of Appeal decision in FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd, which illustrates the dangers of retention of title clauses, which can leave buyers somewhat unprotected, and how a degree of balance was reintroduced by the Supreme Court in PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and another [2016].

You do not currently have access to this chapter

Sign in

Please sign in to access the full content.

Subscribe

Access to the full content requires a subscription