This article notes that English courts deal with voidable title conflicts by attempting to find whether there is a contract between the original owner of goods and the rogue whose actions made such contract void or voidable. This position has become entrenched following the decision of the House of Lords in Shogun Finance v. Hudson. A comparative analysis with the law of the United States indicates a superior alternative: there is no need for a contract between the original owner and the rogue.
History
Citation
Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 2008, Part 2, pp. 188-215
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF ARTS, HUMANITIES AND LAW/School of Law