- •Contents
- •General editors’ preface
- •Preface
- •Contributors
- •Table of cases cited by name
- •England
- •Ireland
- •Netherlands
- •New Zealand
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •United States of America
- •Table of legislation
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •Finland
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Ireland
- •Italy
- •Netherlands
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Sweden
- •Abbreviations
- •1 Introduction: security rights in movable property within the common market and the approach of the study
- •A. A short survey of the status quo
- •I. Economic reasons for the existence of security rights
- •II. Security rights in movable property: main divergencies
- •III. Private international law
- •1. Tangible movables: lex rei sitae and the limits of the doctrine of transposition
- •2. Claims: article 12 of the Rome Convention and its various interpretations
- •IV. The need for harmonisation within the EU
- •V. Attempts at harmonisation or unification: past and present
- •1. European Union
- •2. UNCITRAL
- •3. UNIDROIT
- •4. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
- •B. The approach and purpose of the study
- •I. The ‘Common Core methodology’ as applied to secured transactions
- •II. Surveying the legal landscape against the background of a need for harmonisation
- •III. The genesis of the book
- •1. Narrowing down the topic
- •2. On terminology and the glossary
- •3. Order of the national reports
- •Bibliography
- •2 A labyrinth of creditors: a short introduction to the history of security interests in goods
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Justinian Roman law
- •3. Later developments in the European ius commune
- •4. Security interests in movables in the continental European codes
- •5. Common law and civil law
- •Bibliography
- •Brief description of key features of Article 9
- •History and context
- •Article 9 in depth
- •Creation, attachment and enforceability of a security interest
- •Scope of Article 9’s coverage
- •Perfection
- •How is perfection achieved?
- •Priority rules
- •Third-party rights
- •The filing system
- •Post-default rights and remedies
- •Conclusion
- •A. Article 9 through the eyes of an English lawyer
- •B. The values of English law
- •C. The future of English law
- •D. Summary
- •Postscript
- •Bibliography
- •5 The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Secured Transactions Project: a model law and ten core principles for a modern secured transactions law in countries of Central and Eastern Europe (and elsewhere!)
- •Introduction
- •The EBRD Model Law on Secured Transactions: four objectives
- •The EBRD Ten Core Principles
- •How does the Model Law score? Answers to the questionnaire
- •Cases 1 and 2
- •Case 3
- •Case 4
- •Cases 5 and 6
- •Cases 7 and 8
- •Cases 9 and 11
- •Cases 10 and 14
- •Cases 12 and 13
- •Case 15 and a conclusion
- •Abbreviations
- •Germany
- •Austria
- •Greece
- •France
- •Belgium
- •Portugal
- •Spain
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •England
- •Ireland
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Denmark
- •Sweden
- •Finland
- •Evaluation/Comparative observations
- •Bibliographies
- •Germany
- •Austria
- •Greece
- •France
- •Belgium
- •Portugal
- •Spain
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •England
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Denmark
- •Sweden
- •Finland
- •Comparative observations
- •Glossary
- •I. Introduction
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Effects of bankruptcy
- •General remarks on transfer of ownership
- •Comparative observations
- •part (a)
- •Passing of ownership
- •part (b)
- •part (c)
- •Case 2: The deceived seller
- •Question
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Abstract and causal systems
- •Protection of third parties
- •Case 3: Machinery supplied to be used by the buyer
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Parts (a) and (e)
- •Part (b)
- •Part (c)
- •Part (d)
- •Case 4: Jackets for resale
- •Question
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Case 5: Motor cars supplied and resold (I)
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Part (a)
- •Part (b)
- •Part (c)
- •(i) Solutions which do not require additional clauses or transactions
- •(iii) Assignment of the proceeds
- •(v) Contracts other than sale under retention of title (consignment and commission)
- •(vi) Rights in the sold goods other than retention of title
- •(vii) Summary
- •Case 6: Motor cars supplied and resold (II)
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Part (a)
- •Part (b)
- •Case 7: Supply of material to manufacturer (I)
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Part (a)
- •Part (b)
- •Part (c)
- •Part (d)
- •Case 8: Supply of material to manufacturer (II)
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Parts (a) and (b)
- •Part (c)
- •Part (d)
- •Case 9: Too many toasters
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Part (a)
- •(i) Validity of all-sums clauses
- •(ii) Invalidity of all-sums clauses
- •(iii) All-sums clauses and commingling
- •(iv) Invalidity of simple retention of title
- •Part (b)
- •Part (c)
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •(i) Principle of publicity
- •(iii) Unconscionability
- •Comparative observations
- •Parts (a)--(c)
- •(i) Use of ownership for security purposes
- •(ii) Security rights based on the idea of a pledge without dispossession
- •Part (d)
- •Case 11: Bank loan for a wholesaler
- •Questions
- •Variation
- •Discussions
- •Stock-in-trade containing goods sold under retention of title
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Variation
- •Comparative observations
- •Parts (a)--(c)
- •Part (d)
- •Variation
- •Case 12: Bank loan on the basis of money claims (I)
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •(iii) Further requirements
- •Case 13: Bank loan on the basis of money claims (II)
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Parts (a)--(c)
- •Part (d)
- •Case 14: Finance leasing of computers
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Part (a)
- •Part (b)
- •Part (c)
- •Part (d)
- •Case 15: Indebted businessman sells business to brother
- •Questions
- •Discussions
- •Comparative observations
- •Part (a)
- •Parts (b) and (c)
- •A. General tendencies
- •I. Common developments
- •1. Evolution of secured transactions law outside the Civil Codes
- •2. No unitary, functional approach to security rights
- •3. Enlarging the range of security rights
- •4. Limiting the rights of secured creditors in insolvency
- •6. The rise of contractual devices coupled with title-based security rights
- •II. Persisting differences
- •1. General attitude towards security rights in movables
- •B. Convergences and divergences in relation to specific security rights
- •I. Security rights with strong convergence
- •1. Simple retention of title
- •2. Leasing
- •II. Security rights where some elements of convergence are present but where significant differences continue to subsist
- •1. Security rights in entities of property -- enterprise charge
- •2. Security assignment of claims or charge over claims (outside retention of title)
- •3. Extensions of retention of title
- •4. Non-possessory security rights in individualised property (other than retention of title and leasing)
- •C. Possible ways towards harmonisation
- •I. Simple retention of title
- •II. Harmonisation or unification beyond simple retention of title
- •1. Form, scope and context
- •2. Main policy choices concerning the substantive rules
- •(a) Uniform, functional approach
- •(b) Range of possible collateral
- •(c) Publicity
- •(d) Priority
- •(e) Special rules for purchase-money security interests
- •Bibliography
- •Index by country
- •Index by subject
c a s e 5 : m o t o r c a r s s u p p l i e d a n d r e s o l d ( i ) |
349 |
to assume B’s business risk. Instead, commercial practice in Italy uses personal guarantees.
(vi) Rights in the sold goods other than retention of title
Retention of title has the advantages of simplicity and low transaction costs: in nearly all jurisdictions it needs simply to be inserted into the contract and does not need to be registered. The rights of the seller are vulnerable, however, for example in the event of a sub-sale. A registered charge in the sold goods is an alternative, but it must be registered in such a way that it enables third parties to inform themselves of its existence, thus destroying the possibility of bona fide acquisition. French, Italian, Spanish and Danish law for instance provide for such a registered charge. In Spain, it takes the form of a hypothec in movables (hipoteca mobiliaria) which seems to be available in respect of all categories of movable property. The same is true of Danish law. In France, the registered charge only exists for certain well-defined categories of movables, the most important being vehicles (gage sur véhicule). A registered charge in cars and other vehicles also exists in Italy (privilegio sull’autoveicolo),152 but for the practical reasons set out in the Italian report (lack of registration) it is not used in respect of new cars. If A and B had established such a gage, privilegio or hipoteca, and complied with the registration formalities, A’s rights based on the registered charge (right to preferential payment out of its realisation) would be enforceable in B’s insolvency. Registration would have prevented B’s customers from acquiring rights in the cars that could take priority over A’s rights. In Denmark, the exact scope of the chargee’s rights are still disputed.
(vii) Summary
The safest protection for the seller is a right over the goods themselves which is able to survive resale. This is exemplified by Portuguese, South African and Danish law, which places the seller’s retained ownership above the interests of bona fide purchasers. It is further illustrated by the possibility of taking a registered charge under French, Italian and Spanish law over cars.
In contrast, the potential for the seller to take an effective right in the proceeds of sub-sale is limited. Although most jurisdictions as a matter of principle allow the taking of a security right in claims, be it in the
152 See infra, Italian report, case 6.
350 s e c u r i t y r i g h t s i n m o v a b l e p r o p e r t y
form of a security assignment or by way of a charge, many require a form of publicity that is either too costly (England, Ireland) or makes it near to impossible to take a security in truly future claims153 (France, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland). Consequently, proceeds clauses are not commonly used in practice in these countries.
Germany and Greece are the jurisdictions that stand out in respect of the use and effectiveness of proceeds clauses. The so-called verlängerter Eigentumsvorbehalt can also be used with truly future claims and is not subject to any registration or notification requirements. The same applies in Belgium with the sole difference that the proceeds clause would have to be framed as a charge; yet, as the Belgian report points out, this way for sellers to extend their security rights into proceeds of sub-sales has not yet been fully exploited by Belgian practice, presumably because simple retention of title only recently became effective in insolvency. Austrian law may be said to be similar to German law, although the OGH still has yet clearly to approve of the view that the book entry of assignments is possible even before the legal foundation of the future claim has been laid. However, even German and Austrian law (or the contractual arrangements used in Denmark, Sweden and Finland) cannot provide the seller with any right that would give him priority over B’s insolvency creditors in a situation like the one in case 5: money paid to the first buyer that has been mixed with other funds is always lost irretrievably.
153 Claims where the legal foundation out of which they will arise does not yet exist.