supplied by one seller, an amount of goods equal to the unpaid-for ones may be vindicated notwithstanding the commingling.

(iv) Invalidity of simple retention of title

The strictest view is taken by Danish, Swedish and Finnish law. B, as a retailer, will -- at least implicitly -- be entitled to resell the goods within the thirty days of credit that has been granted to him. As has already been pointed out in the context of case 4, such an entitlement renders the retention of title void from the beginning. Hence, the question of whether an extension of title retention is valid does not arise.

Part (b)

The alternative methods for achieving the same result as an all-monies clause are limited in scope. The Austrian report points out that a simple retention of title coupled with an obligation for the buyer to store the goods separately might help, but there are no remedies in the way of real rights available to the seller if the buyer does not comply. In Denmark, parties may use a credit consignment contract which should again be supplemented by an obligation to keep the goods separate. Swedish and Finnish law would only accept continuing rights of A in the goods if A carried the economic risk of the sub-sales concluded by B.

Part (c)

Evidently, this question was thought to be answerable only by those contributors who could set out a way for sellers to reserve some sort of real right in the already paid-for and/or commingled goods. However, part (c) has been answered positively by the contributors from Austria and Sweden who denied the validity of all-sums clauses in their systems. On the other hand, the Greek and Portuguese contributors point out that all-sums clauses are not commonly used, although they are said to be clearly valid. These answers interestingly shed light on the well-known discrepancy between theory and practice.