Jump to content


if a car is sor from a dealer who goes bankrupt who owns the car


cheffie9
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5674 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi Cheffi,

 

I would contact the SMMT (Soc. of Motor Manufacturers & Traders) if I were you as the vehicles you hold are probably held on a stocking plan which could make ownership a problem.

 

Viano

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bankrupt main dealer actually owned these vehicles then they now belong to the receiver.

 

If they didn't, then the vehicle revert to the original owner.

 

Despite currently holding the vehicles, you are still another unsecured creditor and will be required to surrender the vehicles to their rightful owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some clarity wouldn't go amiss here but as I understand things, there are two cars which are the property of a company (A). A passed over possession of those cars to another company (B). There is no suggestion that B was unlawfully in possession of A's cars.

 

In turn, B passed the cars to the OP's company © for the purpose of servicing and repairs. If B had no interest in or benefit to derive from effecting the repairs, it seems to me a reasonable conclusion to draw that B contracted with C as agent of A in order to repair and improve A's cars and as such the contract made by B with C was for A's benefit. C are now in possession of A's cars having carried out the repairs. There is no suggestion the cars are subject to HP.

 

In my view C is entitled to exercise a lien over A's cars as an unpaid bailee. Further, that C may exercise the powers conferred by Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977 section 12 so long as C follows the procedure set out in the Act.

 

It seems to me that in the circumstances outlined above the liquidation of B is of no consequence.

 

As I say, some clarity wouldn't go amiss so if I have misunderstood it would be a good idea to clarify the precise position and inter-relationship of A, B and C before running off to flog the damn things.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't interpret the situation that way. The OP has mentioned SOR in the title. The way I see it is Dealer A lent Dealer B the cars on SOR. B put the cars into the OP's garage for repairs. B has gone bust, and the OP's garage are holding the cars in lieu of money owed by B. But the cars belong to A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...