Beneficial interest on goods under a HP Agreement.

[JustAnotherPerson]

Soo, even if you were right equity follows the law and you can't use equity law to override the common law. If the law says one thing, equity won't prevail unless it was unconscionable to do so. An example might be the changing of a will on a death bed or for other fraudulent purposes. The law says its a hire agreement and those payments are made under hire so equity cannot apply.

 

For equity to apply the bailiff would have to show the agreement was unconscionable or fraudulent which is where a properly construed argument would defeat this. Whilst i acknowledge your interpretation of beneficial interest, it doesn't fit with the laws of equity. You say a debtor is paying towards the purchase price, the law says its rental payments - the law prevails and unfortunately, equity does not.

[Peterbard]

I dont think there is any question that i am right , because this is what the bailiffs do.

 

I am unsure what the rest if the post means TBH, but be assured that the simple description given by me here is the correct one.

 

No one is changing anything, the interest exists because of the payments made by the debtor off the value of the car, if you are talking about intersts like this being equitable in nature ,this is because they are not legal intersts and title to them cannot be realized without the action of law, in this case contract.

 

Simiar to an equitable mortgage for instance. But you are complicating a simple mechanism for some reason

 

Soo, even if you were right equity follows the law and you can't use equity law to override the common law. If the law says one thing, equity won't prevail unless it was unconscionable to do so. An example might be the changing of a will on a death bed or for other fraudulent purposes. The law says its a hire agreement and those payments are made under hire so equity cannot apply.

ot.

 

Oh I see what you are getting at. Yes as you say i too believe that the goods are on hire, but as we know the equity does not have to be available immediate in beneficial interest.

You mentioned a will for instance, the benifit may be within the estate for years before the interest is realized and the beneficiary gets his inheritance. Same with money invested in a trust.

 

I suppose it is notional in that respect. The fact is though that once the agrement is terminated the car is no longer on hire, and benefits can be dispersed after the appropriate dispursements have been made.

 

I think that this route has to be abandoned TBH, but here are others which sound to me at least more promising.

 

For instance, to be able to release the interest from the car, the agrement mus be terminated by the lender., The breach which enables this is purely due to the actin of the bailiff.

 

It may be correct that it seems Parliament did not intend the exemption to apply to HP because they did not state that it shouldn't, or it may be that they did not say anything because they do.

 

The CCA certainly does not sit comfortably with the requirements of schedule 12 you would expect some kind of amendment made to various section , as has happened in other cases of contradicting legislation, ther is certainly a vast amount of it.

 

I think someone with a good knowledge of bailiff law and the CCA may be able to ask some awkward questions.

[JustAnotherPerson]

Sorry not sure if you are beginning to agree with me on the beneficial interest argument or just wording it another way?

 

Anyway in a more simplistic way, equity law can be explained in the same way as a conflict between contractual terms and statute law, it is statute that will always prevail. Beneficial interest can only arise in certain circumstances and one criteria is the common intention of both parties. To understand the common intention of the parties one would look to the terms of the agreement as a starting point. If there is no intention by both parties of the same thing then there will be no beneficial interest.

 

The way I see it is that bailiffs by arguing a beneficial interest is altering the original intentions of the parties under the agreement, that is a hire with an option to purchase. The CCA defines a HP as a hire agreement and at the end of the hire agreement they have an option. It does not matter how the payments are calculated, it is still a hire agreement for a fixed period according to the CCA.

 

references to goods of the debtor do not include references to trust property in which either the debtor or a co-owner has an interest that is not vested in possession.

 

I've inserted the words in red for easier understanding - You could probably argue that this reference means that HP agreements are exempt. The quote above means, for the purposes of Schedule 12, goods are not deemed to belong to the debtor if either the debtor or the co-owner has a beneficial interest which is not an immediate interest.

 

Vested in possession is a term which means an immediate right to something e.g. income or rent

 

Therefore even if a beneficial interest is established, its not deemed to be goods which belong to the debtor if it is something of benefit at a later date. Wills are a common example here, there's a beneficial interest, but the right to it won't crystallize until the death of that person. Similar to a HP agreement, the hirer's interest does not crystallize until he makes all payments and exercises the option to purchase.

 

I don't know if that argument has been used before on these failed cases but it certainly seems to fit the bill that HP goods are exempt, even though its not as clear cut as Parliament has suggested. I would be interested to see how the court deals with these arguments on beneficial interest. I suspect the bailiff or whoever is representing the bailiff might struggle unless they've got themselves clued up on equity and trusts law.

[Peterbard]

Sorry not sure if you are beginning to agree with me on the beneficial interest argument or just wording it another way?

 

Anyway in a more simplistic way, equity law can be explained in the same way as a conflict between contractual terms and statute law, it is statute that will always prevail. Beneficial interest can only arise in certain circumstances and one criteria is the common intention of both parties. To understand the common intention of the parties one would look to the terms of the agreement as a starting point. If there is no intention by both parties of the same thing then there will be no beneficial interest.

 

Hmm. statute like the Consumer Credit Act regulates the contract, there is no conflict, as the statute is not interested in creating a bargain. The statute does say how said bargain is conducted however.

 

I think that it would be hard to show that the interest built up on the correct performance of an agrement signed by both parties was contrary to their intention. Anyway I am sure that the debtor would be quite pleased that he was building up an interest in his car, if he was not being pursued by bailiffs

 

The way I see it is that bailiffs by arguing a beneficial interest is altering the original intentions of the parties under the agreement, that is a hire with an option to purchase. The CCA defines a HP as a hire agreement and at the end of the hire agreement they have an option. It does not matter how the payments are calculated, it is still a hire agreement for a fixed period according to the CCA.

 

Yes but as said earlier the agrement can be terminated by activation of a term within it. The term will say something like," the hirer must at all times have the vehicle under his control".

Whether it is ethical for the baiiff to trigger this term in order to sell the vehicle is I believe something that should be explored. After all the EA is responsible for the hirer breaching his contract not the hirer.

 

I've inserted the words in red for easier understanding - You could probably argue that this reference means that HP agreements are exempt. The quote above means, for the purposes of Schedule 12, goods are not deemed to belong to the debtor if either the debtor or the co-owner has a beneficial interest which is not an immediate interest.

 

Vested in possession is a term which means an immediate right to something e.g. income or rent

 

Yes thanks for the red, it made all the difference .Yes it is about trusts really, i noticed it being mentioned and thought i would help out. It refers to a trust providing immediate benefits to a beneficiary as against one that is in interest only

 

Therefore even if a beneficial interest is established, its not deemed to be goods which belong to the debtor if it is something of benefit at a later date. Wills are a common example here, there's a beneficial interest, but the right to it won't crystallize until the death of that person. Similar to a HP agreement, the hirer's interest does not crystallize until he makes all payments and exercises the option to purchase.

 

I don't know if that argument has been used before on these failed cases but it certainly seems to fit the bill that HP goods are exempt, even though its not as clear cut as Parliament has suggested. I would be interested to see how the court deals with these arguments on beneficial interest. I suspect the bailiff or whoever is representing the bailiff might struggle unless they've got themselves clued up on equity and trusts law.

 

It has been mentioned here earlier, wouldn't know if it has been used in court.

 

Sorry abut the delay I was out enjoying the last of the sunshine, or so it seems.

[Peterbard]

Whilst i acknowledge your interpretation of beneficial interest, it doesn't fit with the laws of equity. You say a debtor is paying towards the purchase price, the law says its rental payments - the law prevails and unfortunately, equity does not.

 

I missed this, and it is important this is made clear as it is indicative of the general misunderstanding regarding this issue.

In fact no law anywhere says that installments do not come of the sale price of the goods.

 

The question of if money paid, is either off the purchase price or is payment for hire is decided when the debtor decides if he is going to accept the vehicle, if he does not it is hire, if he does he has simply paid off the loan.

 

If you look at a HP agreement you will see that it is constructed in exactly the same way as a fixed sum restricted use loan. That is with the repayment being applied to the interest as well as the purchase price of the goods.

The law is here.

 

9 Meaning of credit.

(1)In this Act “credit ” includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation.

(2)Where credit is provided otherwise than in sterling it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as provided in sterling of an equivalent amount.

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the person by whom goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired to an individual under a hire-purchase agreement shall be taken to provide him with fixed-sum credit to finance the transaction of an amount equal to the total price of the goods less the aggregate of the deposit (if any) and the total charge for credit.

 

This is why he cannot claim any money back regarding the sum paid for purchase on rejecting the car.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/9

[Peterbard]

Just to add to the above. This is also another reason why PCP agreements are not siezed. There can be no presumption that there was intention to purchase the car. Unlike HP agreements where the full price will have been paid on termination ,a PCP agreement still has the full value yet to pay.

Less than 20%of people who take out PCP. Actually go on to purchase the car, see above link.

[Peterbard]

Interesting Australian case.

 

http://casenotes.curwoods.com.au/?p=1100

 

Background Circumstances

The bailor, Anderson Group Pty Limited (“the appellant”) obtained a Mercedes car (“the vehicle”) under a hire purchase agreement from Esanda Limited. The agreement contained a provision that the hirer was not to part with possession without prior written consent. The appellant claimed that it telephoned Esanda, obtained a payout figure, informed Esanda that they intended to sell the vehicle and then took it to the yard of the bailee, Tynan Motors Pty Limited (“the respondent”) for sale on consignment. The appellant also failed to insure the vehicle which was a breach of the agreement. TV

[JustAnotherPerson]

Morning,

 

late reply from me as a busy weekend! I won't go into some of your comments at #29as that raises other issues and would veer off the subject of this thread being a beneficial interest.

 

Re #30, all that says is that under a hire purchase agreement, the lender provides him with a loan for the fixed hire period but cannot be taken as an agreement to buy. But it is not the reason why the hirer cannot reclaim any monies paid because (a) its during the hire period and (b) this is confirmed under s.99(2)

 

Re #31, you are making the presumption that the hirer is going to buy the car at the end of the hire period but how can you determine that? what if there are a change in circumstances or something else happens which means the hirer cannot or does not wish to purchase the car? PCP is no different to a HP agreement other than the way its calculated, you pay off the depreciation of the car which is still part of its full value. In the absence of the way the payments are calculated, PCP's and HP's are pretty much identical.

 

Re #32, not sure what the case adds to this thread as its an Australian case on wrongful interference where someone had possession and thats already been established long before that case date.

 

2 points I'd like to make:

 

The previous House of Lords quotes i referred to on page 1 were Helby v Matthews which was based on a HP agreement and here's a further quote which helpfully answers the points you make:

 

I cannot think that an agreement to buy, “if he does not change his mind,” is any agreement to buy at all in the eye of the law. If it rests with me to do or not to do a certain thing at a future time, according to the then state of my mind, I cannot be said to have contracted to do it … I think it very likely that both parties thought it would probably end in a purchase, but this is far from shewing that it was an agreement to buy … In such a case how could it be said that he had agreed to buy when he had not only come under no obligation to buy, but had not even made up his mind to do so?

 

As for the definition of bailment for the purposes of the CCA, this was explained in another House of Lords case, TRM Copy Centre v Lanwell Services 2009:

 

the hirer acquires the use and possession of the goods from the provider in return for a rent, whether payable in cash or in kind.

 

The above just reiterates the fact that a HP agreement is merely a hire agreement and the payments made over the fixed period are payments for rent. You cannot have any form of ownership, beneficial or otherwise for something which you are renting so the only time beneficial interest arises, is when the hirer chooses to purchase the car, otherwise he must return it. This is exactly the same position under a pure hire agreement except that the option to purchase the goods will be offered by the owner rather than an express clause in the agreement allowing the hirer to purchase.

 

As there is already authority out there by the highest court in England and Wales, the county courts would be bound to follow the previous decisions. A HP agreement is different to a conditional sale agreement, that is where the person agrees to buy the goods over instalments but absolute ownership does not pass until all payments made. This is the only agreement which might entitle a bailiff to seize the goods but it still raises issues regarding the contractual restrictions in place under it which would prevent a bailiff from seizing the goods.

Edited August 22, 2016 by JustAnotherPerson

[Peterbard]

Morning,

 

late reply from me as a busy weekend! I won't go into some of your comments at #29as that raises other issues and would veer off the subject of this thread being a beneficial interest.

 

Re #30, all that says is that under a hire purchase agreement, the lender provides him with a loan for the fixed hire period but cannot be taken as an agreement to buy. But it is not the reason why the hirer cannot reclaim any monies paid because (a) its during the hire period and (b) this is confirmed under s.99(2)

 

The reason the goods are said to be on hire in this respect is because they are not owned by the debtor.

However they are not under a hire agreement. A hire agrement and a hire purchase agrement are different things and regulated under different parts of the CCA.

If it were a hire agreement all money paid would go straight to the creditor, there would be no issue of him taking possession. On a HP agreement there is, and a proportion of the payment will be apportioned towards the potential sale of the car.

.

 

I have split your letter into parts.

[Peterbard]

Re #31, you are making the presumption that the hirer is going to buy the car at the end of the hire period but how can you determine that? what if there are a change in circumstances or something else happens which means the hirer cannot or does not wish to purchase the car? PCP is no different to a HP agreement other than the way its calculated, you pay off the depreciation of the car which is still part of its full value. In the absence of the way the payments are calculated, PCP's and HP's are pretty much identical.

 

A civil court as you know works under the balance of probabilities, now if a car on hire purchase is partially paid off at the end of its term why would anyone hand it back ?

 

There is a slight difference between CPC and hire purchase, in that a PCP the debtor will have to pay the full price of the carat the end pf the term, and if the debtor on a hire purchase agreement who is not in arrears he has nothing (or very little ) to pay in order to take possession of the car.

[Peterbard]

Re #32, not sure what the case adds to this thread as its an Australian case on wrongful interference where someone had possession and thats already been established long before that case date.

As again I am sure you know Most commonwealth countries and indeed many others as well, have a system based on the English common law system. In regards to property law which is 90% common law there is indeed mush to gain from studying the case mentioned.

[Peterbard]

The above just reiterates the fact that a HP agreement is merely a hire agreement and the payments made over the fixed period are payments for rent. You cannot have any form of ownership, beneficial or otherwise for something which you are renting so the only time beneficial interest arises, is when the hirer chooses to purchase the car, otherwise he must return it. This is exactly the same position under a pure hire agreement except that the option to purchase the goods will be offered by the owner rather than an express clause in the agreement allowing the hirer to purchase.

 

Interesting cases, but again out of context, the case refers to the debtor being forced into purchase, as if contractually obliged, this is not contended in the current context of the thread, no one here is saying anyone is contractually obliged, just that he is likely to buy.

[Peterbard]

The above just reiterates the fact that a HP agreement is merely a hire agreement and the payments made over the fixed period are payments for rent. You cannot have any form of ownership, beneficial or otherwise for something which you are renting so the only time beneficial interest arises, is when the hirer chooses to purchase the car, otherwise he must return it. This is exactly the same position under a pure hire agreement except that the option to purchase the goods will be offered by the owner rather than an express clause in the agreement allowing the hirer to purchase.

 

As there is already authority out there by the highest court in England and Wales, the county courts would be bound to follow the previous decisions. A HP agreement is different to a conditional sale agreement, that is where the person agrees to buy the goods over instalments but absolute ownership does not pass until all payments made. This is the only agreement which might entitle a bailiff to seize the goods but it still raises issues regarding the contractual restrictions in place under it which would prevent a bailiff from seizing the goods.

 

Authority possibly, but not in the case under discussion here sadly.

 

As said hire and Hire purchase are not the same thing.(ie sections 15 and 9 of the CCA respectively)

[Peterbard]

I think I should correct something else whilst you are here.

You seem to have a problem discerning between equity(law),and equity in goods( which would be just one of issues referred to in property law). The two things are different with all due respect.

[Peterbard]

Sorry for completeness the second case you mention is just about a hire agreement, nothing to do with HP it examines section 15 of the CCA, which as said is in regards to hire.

[JustAnotherPerson]

Just to clarify, the definition of hire purchase is set out under 189.

 

section 15: A consumer hire agreement is an agreement made by a person with an individual (the “hirer ”) for the bailment or (in Scotland) the hiring of goods to the hirer

 

Hire-Purchase means an agreement, other than a conditional sale agreement, under which:

(a)goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired in return for periodical payments by the person to whom they are bailed or hired

 

There is no difference between the two definitions, the goods are bailed and the definition of bailment is a transfer of something from one person to another without any ownership and if any kind of ownership transfers then it cannot be a bailment. So when the HOL held the meaning under s.15, the same applies to the meaning under hire-purchase and if you read the decisions in full then you will see that they confirm this indirectly.

 

The definition also qualifies that property in the goods will only pass if a certain condition is met i.e. the option to purchase. So until that condition is met, it is an agreement for goods which are bailed e.g. for hire.

 

A civil court as you know works under the balance of probabilities, now if a car on hire purchase is partially paid off at the end of its term why would anyone hand it back ?

 

Again, Helby v Matthews says you cannot make that presumption and to do so would (a) contravene the debtor's right to return it at a later date and (b) would alter the terms of the agreement to an agreement to buy. There could be a number of reasons: not worth buying if the car is becoming too costly to run, loss of job and no longer able to afford it, to return the car for a newer model after 3-4 years and possibly more reasons.

 

I don't dispute the difference between HP and PCP, but you cannot disagree that in both agreements there is both an option to purchase and the only difference is the payments being made. You could argue exactly the same under a PCP agreement in that since there is the option to purchase why would the hirer not purchase it? You just cannot make that pre-determination because such pre-determination means the hirer already committed to buying the car. If he wanted to commit to that level then the agreement will have been under a conditional sale agreement as there is an obligation (not an option) to pay the final instalment.

 

Interesting cases, but again out of context, the case refers to the debtor being forced into purchase, as if contractually obliged, this is not contended in the current context of the thread, no one here is saying anyone is contractually obliged, just that he is likely to buy.

The case did not argue a forced agreement but argued the same position you claim in that despite having the option to return it, he was likely to buy the piano at the end of the agreement. As the quote above makes mention of, it was the Court that held if they were to agree to that line of argument then the agreement effectively becomes an agreement to buy, and just because one or both of the parties thought the car might be bought, that is not enough to show an intention to buy. They referred to a case of Lee v Butler which was a conditional sale and distinguished it by saying had it been a conditional sale and the hirer was obliged to make the final payment then that would be an agreement to buy.

 

You seem to have a problem discerning between equity(law),and equity in goods( which would be just one of issues referred to in property law). The two things are different with all due respect.

Not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate? Beneficial interest is an equitable interest under the principles of equity law. So if there is another beneficial interest that you are aware of please let me know because this is the only one I know of. Equity law applies where legal remedies (damages) are not sufficient and its unjust for someone to enforce their strict legal rights. This is how the equitable remedies of injunction, specific performance come about

Edited August 22, 2016 by JustAnotherPerson

[Peterbard]

I think I have answered all this. I urge you to re example this area in light of what I have said

[JustAnotherPerson]

Perhaps you may have but this is a discussion and I am only advancing what I know and have researched. The crux of the argument though seems to be that you are distinguishing the law of equity with equity in goods and yet then go on to say there's a beneficial interest.

 

So in your opinion if equity in goods does not relate to the law of equity then its only other meaning I can think of in this context is the value of the goods. But the bailiff can only seize goods if the debtor has a beneficial interest which falls within the realms of equity law, so you can't argue one without the other. And if equity follows the law and the courts have pretty much ruled on this already and the CCA says its an agreement for hire then to me it's all settled.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be alluding to something that the bailiff can seize the goods without applying the principles of equity law and that's what's confusing me. You can't argue beneficial interest without having a real understanding of how it works and without applying the laws of equity in accordance with the common law and statute.

[Peterbard]

yes indeed I am because they are different things.

 

Equity in goods relates to a value of goods. Equity in law relates to a legal system which uses the values of fairness and equity instead of common law.

 

Equity law can be applied to anything, as said it is a system of justice and nothing to do with property.

 

Equity in goods will be featured in the law of property act or others which encompasses the common law rules in how intersts etc. in goods are defined.

 

The misconception you seem to have is illustrated in a post earlier where you said, that equity follows common law. This is indeed one of the maxims regarding equity(law) but it refers to decisions in court , in that a decision based in equity can be overturned by a decision on the same evidence in law. Nothing to do with property, necessarily.

[Peterbard]

 

Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be alluding to something that the bailiff can seize the goods without applying the principles of equity law and that's what's confusing me. You can't argue beneficial interest without having a real understanding of how it works and without applying the laws of equity in accordance with the common law and statute.

 

Yes you are wrong as the bailiffs just have to apply the principles in the TCEA, this is statute and as you said equity follows law.

[Peterbard]

I understand how the law applies to these matters, as said equity law doesn't. Property law states what is and what is not, there are no fairness implications,.

[JustAnotherPerson]

There is no definition in the LPA 1925 of "equity in goods" it does however note the difference between legal interest and equitable interest. Equitable interest speaks for itself, an ownership/interest in something as a result of certain actions, which is not legal ownership.

 

The TCE says bailiffs can seize goods if the debtor has a beneficial interest, can you point to me in the Act what beneficial interest means? There is nothing as far as I can see that defines beneficial interest and the reason why is because it falls under the law of equity, however I am willing to be corrected if you can point to another meaning within the Act that defines this as something else.

 

I think you have also misunderstood the maxim of equity follows the law - equity will apply the law as far as possible unless it is unjust or unconscionable to do so not the other way around. Prime example will be if a couple buys a house and it is in one name, but the other person contributes to the purchase price, he/she will have an equitable interest i.e. one which results from the law of equity (fairness) and not legal because if the strict legal rights were to apply, he/she will have no right and will have wasted the money spent.

 

Overall, I still don't see the relevance of equity in goods, yes its the value of goods but who owns the goods? The HP agreement says the creditor owns the goods. You argue its a shared ownership which means if the hirer is not a legal owner he must be a beneficial owner. How you do apply the law to a beneficial owner? You refer to the rules of equity law because the only option is legal rights and the legal right says the creditor owns it absolutely.

 

You refer to property law but property law also encompasses the law of equity under the LPA 1925, hence the definition in there saying anything other than a legal title is an equitable title.

Edited August 22, 2016 by JustAnotherPerson

[Peterbard]

There is no definition in the LPA 1925 of "equity in goods" it does however note the difference between legal interest and equitable interest. Equitable interest speaks for itself, an ownership/interest in something as a result of certain actions, which is not legal ownership.

 

The TCE says bailiffs can seize goods if the debtor has a beneficial interest, can you point to me in the Act what beneficial interest means? There is nothing as far as I can see that defines beneficial interest and the reason why is because it falls under the law of equity, however I am willing to be corrected if you can point to another meaning within the Act that defines this as something else.

 

I think you have also misunderstood the maxim of equity follows the law - equity will apply the law as far as possible unless it is unjust or unconscionable to do so not the other way around. Prime example will be if a couple buys a house and it is in one name, but the other person contributes to the purchase price, he/she will have an equitable interest i.e. one which results from the law of equity (fairness) and not legal because if the strict legal rights were to apply, he/she will have no right and will have wasted the money spent.

 

Overall, I still don't see the relevance of equity in goods, yes its the value of goods but who owns the goods? The HP agreement says the creditor owns the goods. You argue its a shared ownership which means if the hirer is not a legal owner he must be a beneficial owner. How you do apply the law to a beneficial owner? You refer to the rules of equity law because the only option is legal rights and the legal right says the creditor owns it absolutely.

 

You refer to property law but property law also encompasses the law of equity under the LPA 1925, hence the definition in there saying anything other than a legal title is an equitable title.

 

OK

[Peterbard]

There is no definition in the LPA 1925 of "equity in goods" it does however note the difference between legal interest and equitable interest. Equitable interest speaks for itself, an ownership/interest in something as a result of certain actions, which is not legal ownership.

 

The TCE says bailiffs can seize goods if the debtor has a beneficial interest, can you point to me in the Act what beneficial interest means? There is nothing as far as I can see that defines beneficial interest and the reason why is because it falls under the law of equity, however I am willing to be corrected if you can point to another meaning within the Act that defines this as something else.

 

I think you have also misunderstood the maxim of equity follows the law - equity will apply the law as far as possible unless it is unjust or unconscionable to do so not the other way around. Prime example will be if a couple buys a house and it is in one name, but the other person contributes to the purchase price, he/she will have an equitable interest i.e. one which results from the law of equity (fairness) and not legal because if the strict legal rights were to apply, he/she will have no right and will have wasted the money spent.

 

Overall, I still don't see the relevance of equity in goods, yes its the value of goods but who owns the goods? The HP agreement says the creditor owns the goods. You argue its a shared ownership which means if the hirer is not a legal owner he must be a beneficial owner. How you do apply the law to a beneficial owner? You refer to the rules of equity law because the only option is legal rights and the legal right says the creditor owns it absolutely.

 

You refer to property law but property law also encompasses the law of equity under the LPA 1925, hence the definition in there saying anything other than a legal title is an equitable title.

 

No I am sorry, discussion or no,this is just too silly.

[JustAnotherPerson]

What's too silly? You reject the argument that beneficial interest falls under equity law despite everything pointing towards it being the case, though you haven't suggested anything else. The leading case on beneficial interest is Stack v Dowden - also confirmed the starting point is where there is sole legal ownership, there is sole beneficial ownership. If you google beneficial interest, it all points to equity law and Stack v Dowden amongst other things. There's no reference to benficial interest which is outside the realms of equity law.

 

Happy to be corrected on this point but overall there's nothing in the TCE no any other staute on the face of it, in which beneficial interest falls outside of the laws of equity.