Trade Electronix sued the administrators and Davenham for wrongful interference with goods. Dismissing the claim the judge relied on s.24 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which provides:
"Where a person having sold goods continues or is in possession of the goods, or of the documents of title to the goods, the delivery or transfer by that person, or by a mercantile agent acting for him, of the goods or documents of title under any sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof, to any person receiving the same in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, has the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transfer were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same"
Trade Elelctronix appealed on the ground that .the goods had never entered into Davenham's possession.
The Court upheld Judge Behrens's decision but on the ground that there had been no binding contract between Trade Electronix and Best Buy. A very unfortunate result for Trade Electronix which lost a bargain through no fault of its own.
The Lord Justices' decision appears to be based entirely on an analysis of correspondence between Mr Smith and Mr. Singh resolves none of the uncertainties produced by s.24. The only way that a purchaser can protect itself is by removing the goods as soon as it buys them. Not always easy when they are resold several times in quick succession.