|
|
|
|
|
|
by icebraining
2961 days ago
|
|
|
The seller doesn't have to give up their rights: "Suppose Ed takes his bicycle to Merv, a bicycle dealer, for repairs, but instead of making repairs Merv sells the bicycle to Betty. Who now owns the bicycle? Section 2-403(2) states that "[a]ny entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business." Ed has entrusted possession of goods to Merv, a merchant dealing in goods of that kind. Assuming Betty is a buyer in the ordinary course of business (BIOC), Merv now has the power to transfer all of Ed's rights in the bicycle to Betty. Betty now owns the bicycle, and Ed cannot validly assert any ownership claim against her. Ed's only remedies would be against Merv." https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art... |
|
|
Ed might not have rights under the UCC, assuming it applied to the transaction, which is questionable since Ed does not appear to be a merchant. He would have rights under state laws that override the provisions of the UCC.
[Edit] Most states actually override this provision of the UCC to define entrusting narrowly. See, e.g, California's provision:
3) “Entrusting” includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession for the purpose of sale, obtaining offers to purchase, locating a buyer, or the like; regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goods have been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law.