Is it possible that someone who takes goods under a hire purchase agreement from a financial institution or a garage can be told afterwards that they were not the owner's or the company's goods?
SECTION 65.
Question proposed: "That section 65 stand part of the Bill."
Does the Deputy mean the owner has no right to give them?
Yes. Is there protection for people who take goods from a garage?
If the owner of that garage did not have the right to give them?
Yes.
Why?
Sometimes one hire purchase agreement overlaps another and the garage does not have clear title to the goods.
In other words, the garage got them back and is selling them?
I am worried that by getting rid of the Hire Purchase Acts, the Minister is providing protection for people who, in good faith——
Where we included the hire purchase sections of the Hire Purchase Act, 1946, or the Hire Purchase (Amendment) Act, 1960, that part of the Bill was clearly drafted so as to retain the rights.
Deputy McDowell has raised an important issue. There is an increasing tendency in the commercial world for the owner of the goods to retain ownership until all sums relating to the disposal of the goods have been paid in full. One frequently sees this caveat written on sales documents, invoices, etc. It creates serious difficulties for the third person to the agreement. The first person purchases the goods on credit and then sells them to a third party. The original owner has this disclaimer where he or she retains the right of ownership in these goods until all sums relating to this transaction have been paid in full. The middle person disposes of the equipment bought but the third person buying that piece of equipment is not aware that there is a disclaimer in existence from the original vendor of the goods. All that impinges on this section and is giving rise to concern in the marketplace. We are talking about consumer legislation here, but frequently buyers, particularly well organised, substantial companies, will disclaim anyone's right to put in such a clause and will make it clear at the outset that such a right is cancelled. The issue of when ownership passes from one client to another is fairly complex. That impinges on the section and the Minister is right, if I have heard correctly, to examine the implications of such situations.
I am content that what we transposed from other legislation to the hire purchase section of the Bill was done very carefully. This may well be a possibility which has now made itself apparent and which had not shown up in the original Bill, but I would be surprised if it had not because the Hire Purchase Acts go back to 1946. The market place has become complex, credit arrangements are different and letting arrangements and purchasing have become more complex than they were in 1946.
Will the Minister make sure that she is providing that where somebody has possession of goods and sells them to an innocent third party under a hire purchase agreement, title to the goods is conferred on that innocent purchaser? It is appalling that someone who deals in good faith has their property taken from them on the grounds that whoever hired the stuff to them did not have title to the goods.
I will certainly have that looked at.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 66 agreed to.