TABLEOFCASES
NB:CCLRdenotesConsumerCreditLawReportswhichwerepublished until2000in Consumer Credit Control byBennionandDobson,butarenow publishedaspartofSweet&Maxwell’s Encyclopedia of Consumer Credit Law.
AgricultoresFederadosArgentinosvAmproSA
[1965]2Lloyd’sRep757215,219,229 AilsaCraigFishingvMalvernFishing[1983]1AllER44930 AlbermarleSupplyCovHind[1928]1KB307128 AldridgevJohnson(1857)7E&B88562 Aliakmon,The
See LeighandSillavanvAliakmonShippingCo,TheAliakmon Allam&CovEuropaPosterServices[1968]1AllER826144 AllianceandLeicesterBuildingSocietyvBabbs[1993]CCLR77109 AlphaTradingLtdvDunnshaw-Patten[1981]QB290165,166 AMBImballaggiPlasticiSRLvPacflexLtd [1999]2AllER(Comm)249175
AndrewsBrosLtdvSinger&CoLtd[1934]1KB1727 AndrewsvHopkinson[1957]1QB22923,28,150 Anglo-AfricanShippingCoofNewYorkInc
vJMortnerLtd[1962]1Lloyd’sRep610176 ArcosLtdvEARonaasen&Son[1933]AC47038,230,249 ArmagasvMundogas[1986]2AllER385174,186,187,188,189 ArmourvThyssen[1990]3AllER48155,57 AshingtonPiggeriesvHill[1972]AC44139,237 AssociatedDistributorsvHall[1938]2KB83123 AswanvLupdine[1987]1WLR134 AttorneyGeneralforHongKongvReid[1994]1AllER1146 AttorneyGeneralvLeopoldWalford(London)Ltd (1923)14Lloyd’sRep359214 AutomotiveFinancialServicesvHenderson[1993]CCLR55104
B&PWholesaleDistributorsvMarko(1953)unreported241 BankersTrustvStateBankofIndia[1991]1Lloyd’sRep587204,207 BarclaysBankvQuincecareLtd[1988]FTLR507198
BartlettvSydneyMarcus[1965]1WLR101323 BealevTaylor[1967]1WLR119333
BenceGraphicsvFassonUK[1997]3WLR205211 BentinckvCromwellEngineering[1971]1QB324128
viii
Table of Cases
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 2225, 36, 91, 210
Biddell Bros v Clemens Horst & Co [1912] AC 18252, 256
Boardman v Phipps [1966] 3 All ER 721145, 147, 167, 182
Bolton Partners v Lambert (1889) 41 Ch D 295170, 173
Bondina Ltd v Rollaway Shower Blinds Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 517153
Borden v Scottish Timber Products Ltd [1981] Ch 2558
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (1888) 39 Ch D 339250, 255, 257
Bowes v Shand (1877) 2 App Cas 455215, 232, 249, 252, 254, 256, 258
Bowmakers v Barnet Instruments [1945] KB 65114, 118
Bowmakers v Wycombe Motors [1946] KB 505129
Brandt & Co v Morris & Co [1917] 2 KB 784217
Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance [1969] 1 AC 53298
British Airways Board v Taylor [1976] 1 WLR 1345
British Imex Industries Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd [1958] 1 QB 542244
Bunge & Co Ltd v Tradax England Ltd [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 235214, 239
Burrell v Jones (1819) 3 B & Ald 47148
Burstall v Grimsdale (1906) 11 Com Cas 280253, 256
Butterworth v Kingsway Motors [1954] 1 WLR 128674, 116
Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze and Brass [1934] AC 40223
Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 WLR 358189, 190
Car and Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 52580
Cehave v Bremer, The Hansa Nord [1976] 1 QB 4425, 39 Central Newbury Car Auctions v Unity Finance [1957] 1 QB 37176
Chartered Trust v Pitcher [1987] CCLR 71114
Chaudry v Prabhakar [1988] 3 All ER 718144, 197
Chubb Cash Ltd v John Crilley & Son [1983] 1 WLR 59974
City Trust v Levy [1988] 1 WLR 1051185
Clarkson Booker Ltd v Andjel [1964] 2 QB 775151
Clough Mill v Martin [1985] 1 WLR 11155, 57
Coles v Enoch [1939] 3 All ER 327164
Collen v Wright [1857] 8 E & B 647150, 154, 190, 191, 199
Colley v Overseas Exporters [1921] 3 KB 302217
Collins v Associated Greyhound
Racecourses Ltd [1930] 1 Ch 1149
Cunningham, J and J v Robert A Monroe [1922] 28 Com Cas 42221
Daun v Simmins (1879) 41 LT 783184, 195
Davies v Sumner [1984] 1 WLR 13028
Dawson v Dutfield [1936] 2 All ER 23250
Table of Cases ix
De Bussche v Alt [1878] 8 Ch D 286144, 170, 172
Diamond Alkali Export Corp v Fl Bourgeois [1921] 3 KB 443254, 256
Dimond v Lovell [2000] 2 WLR 1121106
Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2000] 2 All ER 75911
Discount Records Ltd v Barclays Bank [1975] 1 WLR 315207
Donald H Scott Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1923] 2 KB 1254
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 56217
Dyster v Randall & Sons [1926] Ch 932176
Ealing LBC v Taylor [1995] Crim LR 15644
East v Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 73335
Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 24 Ch D 45935
El Amria and the El Minia [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 28214
Elafi, The
See Karlshamns Olje Fabriker v Eastport Navigation Corp, The Elafi
Equitable Trust Co of New York v Dawson Partners Ltd (1927) 27 L1L Rep 49203, 230, 239
Esso Petroleum v Commissioners for Customs and Excise [1976] 1 WLR 149
European Asian Bank v Punjab & Sind Bank (No 2) [1983] 1 WLR 642179
Farrand v Lazarus [2002] 3 All ER 175 (DC)44
Financings v Baldock [1963] 1 All ER 443113, 119, 120, 127
Financings v Stimson [1962] 1 WLR 118497
First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 194186, 187, 189
Fraser v Furman [1967] 1 WLR 898171
Frebold and Sturznickel (Trading as Panda OGH) v Circle Products Ltd (1970) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 499211
Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 680171, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 194, 196, 197, 205
Galatia, The
See Golodetz, M & Co Inc v Czarnikow Rionda Line, The Galatia
Gian Singh v Banque de L’Indochine [1974] 1 WLR 1234206
Gill and Duffus v Berger & Co [1984] AC 38287, 244, 252
x Table of Cases
Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Lebanese Organisation for International Commerce [1997] 4 All ER 51487, 236
Golodetz, M & Co Inc v Czarnikow Rionda Line, The Galatia [1980] 1 WLR 495244
Goulston Discount v Clark [1967] 2 QB 493120
Green v Cade [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 60229
Greer v Downs Supply Co [1927] 2 KB 28181
Griffiths v Peter Conway [1939] 1 All ER 685134
Groom Ltd, C v Barber [1915] 1 KB 316254
Grover and Grover v Matthews [1910] 2 KB 401170, 173
Gurtner v Beaton [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 369186, 194
Hackett v Advanced Medical Computer Systems Ltd [1999] CLC 160157, 161
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341212, 226, 242
Hallett’s Estate, Re, sub nom Knatchbull v Hallett (1880) 13 Ch D 69656
Hansa Nord, The See Cehave v Bremer
Harlingdon and Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 73732, 33
Harnett v Yielding (1805) 2 Sch & Lef 549226
Heap v Motorists Advisory Agency [1923] 1 KB 57778
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 46536, 146, 189
Helby v Matthews [1895] AC 47172
Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549197, 205
Hendy Lennox Ltd v Grahame Puttick Ltd [1984] 2 All ER 15258
Henry Dean & Sons (Sydney) Ltd v O’Day Pty Ltd [1927] 39 CLR 330246
Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 2797, 102
Hippisley v Knee Bros [1905] 1 KB 1147, 167
Hirji Mulji v Cheong Yue Steamship Co Ltd [1926] AC 497226
Hoffberger v Ascot International Bloodstock Bureau (1976) 120 SJ 130, CA88
Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki Kisen [1962] 1 All ER 47425, 39
Howell v Coupland (1876) 1 QBD 25863, 68
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 439221
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334223
Ian Stach Ltd v Baker Bosley Ltd [1958] 2 QB 120212, 219
Table of Cases xi
Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 329157, 161
Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 3180
Jackson v Rotax Motor and Cycle Co [1910] 2 KB 93791
Jacobs v Morris [1902] 1 Ch 816197
James Finlay & Co Ltd v Kwik Hoo long [1929] 1 KB 400252
Johnson v Agnew [1979] 2 WLR 48788
Johnson v Taylor Bros [1920] AC 144256
Jones v Boyce [1816] 1 Starkie 493; 171 ER 54019
Julia, The [1949] AC 293; LJR 513237, 244, 248, 256, 258
Karaganda Ltd v Midland Bank plc [1999] All ER (D) 431204
Karlshamns Olje Fabriker v Eastport Navigation Corp, The Elafi [1982] 1 All ER 20862
Keighley Maxsted & Co v Durant [1901] AC 240155, 156, 170, 172, 177, 195
Kelner v Baxter (1866) LR 2 CP 174149, 154, 170, 172
Knatchbull v Hallett
See Hallett’s Estate, Re
Kofi Sunkersette Obu v Strauss & Co Ltd [1951] AC 243159, 164
Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders and Shippers Ltd [1954] 2 QB 459; 2 WLR 365; 98 SJ 163207, 211, 231, 235, 244, 249, 252
Lamb v Goring Brick Co [1932] 1 KB 605175
Law and Bonar Ltd v British American Tobacco Ltd [1916] 2 KB 605248, 253
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 1 All ER 69399
Leigh and Sillavan v Aliakmon Shipping Co, The Aliakmon [1986] 2 All ER 14566, 246
Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 19880
Lloyds Bowmaker Leasing Ltd v MacDonald [1993] CCLR 65103
Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 1256146, 172, 182
Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987] 1 All ER 267; CCLR 41113, 118, 127
London Wine Shippers, Re [1986] PCC 12160
Lupton v White (1808) 15 Ves 432146
Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] 1 All ER 43166
Mahesan v Malaysia Government Officers’
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd [1979] AC 374146
Maine Spinning Co v Sutcliffe & Co [1917] 87 LJ KB 382253, 256
Table of Cases
Manbre Saccharine Co Ltd v Sugar Beet Products Co Ltd (1919) unreported236
Maple Flock Co v Universal Furniture Products [1934] 1 KB 14892, 93
Marsh v Jelf (1862) 3 F & F 234164
Mash and Murrell Ltd v Joseph I Emanuel Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 862231, 241, 245
MFI Warehouses v Nattrass [1973] 1 WLR 30746
Midland Bank Ltd v Reckitt [1933] AC 1198
Midland Bank v Seymour [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147204
Mihalis Angelos, The [1971] 1 QB 16487, 215
Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 80330
Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association [1891] 1 QB 370151
Moore & Co and Landauer & Co, Re [1921] 2 KB 51940, 41, 232
Moore v Piretta [1999] 1 All ER 174157, 161
Moorgate Mercantile Leasing Ltd v Gell and Ugolini [1988] CCLR1103
Moorgate Mercantile Leasing Ltd v Twitchings [1976] 2 All ER 641, HL72
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 1 AC 39917
Museprime Properties v Adhill [1990] 2 EGLR 19635
Naish v Gore [1971] 3 All ER 73143
Nash v Dix (1898) 78 LT 445176
National Mutual General Insurance
Association v Jones [1988] 2 WLR 95273, 83
Newborne v Sensolid [1954] 1 QB 45149
Newtons of Wembley v Williams [1965] 1 QB 56082
Norman v Bennett [1974] 1 WLR 122943, 44
Northey v Trevillion (1902) 7 Com Cas 201195
Oliver v Court (1820) Dan 301146
Olympia Oil and Cake Co and Produce Brokers Ltd, Re [1915] 1 KB 233236
Overstone v Shipway [1962] 1 WLR 117114
Page v Combined Shipping and Trading
Co Ltd [1997] 3 All ER 656157, 161
Pagnan v Corbisa [1970] 1 WLR 130687, 88
Pagnan v Tradax Ocean Transportation [1986] 3 All ER 565216
Panchaud Frères v Etablissements
General Grain [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53235
Pavia & Co SpA v Thurmann-Nielsen [1952] 2 QB 84208, 218, 219, 229, 239, 248
Payne v Cave (1789) 3 Term Rep 148223
Peachdart Ltd, Re [1984] Ch 13158
Pearson v Rose and Young [1951] 1 KB 27577
Table of Cases xiii
Perm v Bristol and West Building Society [1997] 1 WLR 1335187, 190
Perkins v Bell [1893] 1 QB 193240
Pfeiffer GmbH v Arbuthnot Factors [1988] 1 WLR 15056
Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 24380, 81
Phonogram v Lane [1982] QB 938149
Photo Productions v Securicor Transport [1980] 2 WLR 28927
Polhill v Walter (1832) 3 B & Ald 114181
Pound & Co Ltd v Hardy & Co Inc [1956] AC 588217
Power Curber International v National Bank of Kuwait [1981] 1 WLR 1233203, 206
Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402214, 241
R and B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust [1988] 1 All ER 84722, 28
R v Shrewsbury Crown Court ex p Venables (1994) unreported, referred to in [1994] Crim LR 6145
R v Southwood [1987] RTR 27344
R v Sunair Holidays [1973] 1 WLR 110545
R v Thomson Holidays [1974] QB 59246
Rama Corp Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investment [1952] 2 QB 147171, 179, 186
Rayner, JH & Co v Hambro’s Bank Ltd [1943] 1 KB 37204
Reardon Smith Line v Ynguiar Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 98941, 232
Regier v Campbell-Stuart (1939) unreported181
Rogers v Parish [1987] QB 93323
Rolls Razor v Cox [1967] 1 QB 55276
Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd (Liverpool) v WN Lindsay Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 1280242
Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653223
Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 50075, 79
Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] CCLR 4535, 99, 206
Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497175, 176
Sainsbury v Street [1972] 1 WLR 83468, 69
Santa Caterina, The
See Vlassopulos Ltd v Ney Shipping Ltd, The Santa Caterina
Schmalz v Avery (1851) 16 QB 655151
Shanklin Pier v Detel Products [1951] 2 KB 85449
Shine v General Guarantee Corp [1988] 1 All ER 91123
Shogun v Hudson [2002] 2 WLR 867; [2001] EWCA Civ 1080
Simmons v Potter [1975] RTR 34744
Sims v Bond (1833) 5 B & Ald 389149
Table of Cases
Sinason-Teicher Inter-American Grain Corp v Oilcakes and Oilseeds Trading Co Ltd [1954] 1 WLR 1394209
Slater v Fining [1997] AC 473134
Solley v Wood (1852) 16 Beav 370144
Soproma SpA v Marine and Animal
By-Products Corp [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 367203–04, 211, 220, 250
Stadium Finance v Robbins [1962] 2 All ER 63377
Stephenson v Rogers [1999] QB 102828
Sterns v Vickers [1923] 1 KB 7868
Stevenson v Beverley Bentinck [1976] 1 WLR 48372
Summers v Solomon (1857) 7 E & B 879180, 183, 185, 192, 194, 203, 205
Suzuki & Co v Burgett v Newsam (1922) 10 LlL Rep 223252
Swan, The [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 5148, 151, 153, 178, 180
Sztejn v Henry Schroder Banking Corp (1941) NT Supp (2d) 631206
Tai Hing Cotton Mill v Kamsing
Knitting Factory [1978] 2 WLR 6286, 88
Teheran Europe Co Ltd v ST Belton [1968] 2 QB 545156
Tesco Supermarkets v Nattrass [1971] 2 All ER 12746
Thornett and Fehr v Beers & Son [1919] 1 KB 48622
Thornton v Fehr [1935] 51 Lloyd’s Rep 330148, 154
Tiedemann and Ledermann Freres, Re [1899] 2 QB 66172, 173
Tradax Export v André & Cie [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 416242
Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 2 QB 297212, 242
Truk v Tokmakidis [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 54325, 36, 91, 210
Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl [1962] AC 93216
Tukan Timber v Barclays Bank [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 171206
Turnbull v Garden [1869] 20 LT 218145
Turner v Goldsmith [1891] 1 QB 544195
Turpin v Bilton [1843] 5 Man & G 455143
Tzelepi, The (1991) unreported143
Union Transport Finance v British Car Auctions [1978] 2 All ER 385130
United Bank of Kuwait v Hamoud [1988] 1 WLR 1051185, 194
United City Merchants (Investments) v Royal Bank of Canada [1982] QB 208206
United Dominions Trust v Taylor 1980 SLT 28; CCLR 29140
Victoria Laundry [Windsor] Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 997181
Table of Cases xv
Vlassopulos Ltd v Ney Shipping Ltd, The Santa Caterina [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 478148
Wadham Stringer v Meaney [1981] 1 WLR 39123, 126
Wait, Re [1927] 1 Ch 60660
Wallis & Wells v Pratt and Haynes [1911] AC 39427 Waragowski
See Yeoman Credit v Waragowski
Ward v Bignall [1967] 1 QB 53461
Watteau v Fenwick [1893] 1 QB 346179, 182, 183, 184, 192, 193, 194, 203, 205
Waugh v Clifford [1982] 1 Ch 374186, 195
Weigall & Co v Runciman & Co (1916) 85 LJ KB 1187143, 179
Wickham Holdings v Brooke House Motors [1967] 1 WLR 29574, 75
Wills & Sons Ltd v Brown & Sons (1922) 12 LlL Rep 292215
Wimble Sons & Co v Rosenberg & Sons [1913] 3 KB 743232, 246
Wings v Ellis [1985] AC 27245, 46
Yeoman Credit v Waragowski [1961] 1 WLR 1124113
Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 KB 215150, 191
Carriage of Goods by
TABLE OF STATUTES
Sea Act 1992237, 247
s 1(5)257
s 2(1)246
Civil Liability (Contributions)
Act 1978151
Companies Act 198556
s 36149, 154
s 36555
Consumer Credit
Act 197412, 51, 74, 101, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 121, 123, 124, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139
s 8105
s 9(1)106
s 11(1)(a)–(b)98
s 12(a)98
s 12(b)98, 133, 134, 140
s 12(c)140
s 16107
s 21108
s 39(1)108
s 40108
s 50109
s 5695, 99, 100, 131, 132, 133, 135, 138, 151
s 56(1)(b)99, 102
s 56(2)98, 99
s 5798, 99
s 57(2)–(3)97
s 5998
s 6095, 101, 107
s 6195, 102, 107
s 6295, 102, 107
s 62(1)102
s 6395, 102, 107
s 63(2)102
s 6495, 107
s 6595, 108
s 65(2)102
s 6795, 97, 102, 103, 104
s 6995, 98
s 69(2)103
s 69(7)103
s 7095, 98
s 70(1)98
s 70(3)98
s 7195, 98
s 7295, 98, 103
s 72(9)103
s 7395, 98, 103
s 7495
s 758, 12, 13, 14, 47, 52, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
s 75(2)134
s 75(3)138
s 76111, 124, 125
s 87111, 113, 124, 127, 129
s 88127
s 88(2)129
s 89113
s 90111, 114, 117, 121, 125, 128, 129
s 90(3)118
s 91121
s 92114, 118, 128
s 94116
s 95114, 116, 123
s 98111
s 9996, 97, 98, 100, 111, 115, 116
s 100100, 115
s 10299
s 105119
s 111119
s 113119, 120
s 127102, 108, 119
xviii Table of Statutes
s 127(5)102
s 129111, 114, 115, 124, 125, 128
s 130(2)114, 125
s 132104
s 133114
ss 135–36102
s 173124
s 173(3)114
s 189132
s 189(1)99, 108, 119, 120
Consumer Protection
Act 198713, 14, 16, 20, 47, 48
Pt I5, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 48, 135
ss 2–318
s 418
s 4(1)(f)18, 19
s 5(2)19
s 5(4)18
s 6(4)19
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 199912, 14, 48
Enterprise Act 20024
Factors Act 1889
s 2(1)71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82
s 871, 81
s 971, 72, 73, 82
Fair Trading Act 1973
Pt III4
Hire Purchase Act 196474, 75
Pt III71, 72, 73, 74, 129
Marine Insurance Act 1906—
s 50(3)254
Minors’ Contracts Act 1987
s 2117
Misrepresentation Act 196731
s 2(1)24, 35, 36
s 2(2)24, 99
s 329
Power of Attorney Act 1971— s 7154
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000— s 13046
Prevention of Corruption Act 1916— s 1146
Sale of Goods Act 18939, 10, 65, 232, 252
s 14(2)22
Sale of Goods Act 19796, 9, 16, 64, 208, 213, 224, 226
s 1(2)49
s 653
s 753, 63, 68
s 11(4)85, 90, 92, 93
s 1210, 13, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 79
s 137, 10, 13, 15, 31, 32, 38, 40, 90, 100, 229, 232, 234, 237, 244, 249, 252
s 13(3)33
s 147, 10, 13, 14, 15, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 34, 38, 40, 50, 51, 134, 229, 231, 235, 244, 245
s 14(1)39
s 14(2)21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 33, 208, 209, 215, 231, 245
s 14(2A)22, 33
s 14(2B)22, 34
s 14(3)23, 24, 27, 31, 34, 208, 209, 215, 231, 245
s 14(6)134
s 157, 10, 13, 38
s 15A38, 209, 215, 224, 230, 231, 232, 244, 245, 246, 249, 252, 257
s 1653, 59, 61, 65, 66
s 1710, 53, 59, 61, 65, 66
s 1810, 53, 59, 61, 65, 66
s 1910, 53, 61, 65, 66
s 2010, 53, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66
s 20(1)54, 66
s 20(2)63, 65, 67, 68
s 20(3)65
s 20(4)7
s 20A53, 61, 65, 66, 67
s 20B53, 65, 66, 67
s 2282
s 2471, 81, 82, 83
s 2571, 72, 73, 80, 82, 83
s 25(1)55
s 3015, 85, 224, 234
s 30(1)90, 92, 237, 249
s 30(2)41
s 30(2A)237, 249
s 30(3)41
s 30(5)41
s 32(2)245
s 32(3)201, 220, 232, 239, 241, 244, 245, 246, 258, 259
s 3515, 25, 36, 50, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 208, 210
s 35(2)240
s 35(4)90
s 35(5)25
s 35A15, 39, 41, 85, 92
s 35A(1)–(2)92
s 4965
s 5085, 221, 258
s 50(3)86, 88, 89, 212, 216, 217, 242
s 5139, 85, 257
s 51(3)88, 217, 250
s 53(3)40
Table of Statutes xix
s 5510
s 61(1)59
Sale and Supply of Goods Act 199441, 210, 252
Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 19737
s 9100
Supply of Goods and Services Act 19827, 15, 50 Pt II50
s 449, 50, 139
s 1350, 73, 139
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 197778
Trade Descriptions Act 196842, 43
s 143, 44
s 1(1)(a)44, 45
s 1(1)(b)43, 44, 45
s 1143
s 1442, 43, 45, 46
s 2442, 43, 44, 46
s 24(1)43
s 24(3)43
s 2543, 44
Unfair Contract Terms
Act 197710, 11, 14, 15, 26, 27, 28–30, 32, 37, 73, 143
s 329
s 829
s 1129
s 1228 Sched 229
TABLE OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/3053)141, 142, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167
regs 2–3158
reg 4158, 159 reg 7159, 164
reg 7(1)(b)165
reg 8159, 160
reg 9 159
reg 10159, 160
reg 11159, 160, 164, 165
reg 12159, 160
reg 15161
regs 17–18161
Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts
Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/2117)95, 97, 104
Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2334)3, 4, 6
Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976 (1976/1813)32
Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013)5, 6
Sale and Supply of Goods Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/3045)6, 13, 21, 50 reg 16 13
Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1422)4
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3159)11
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083)11, 14, 26, 27, 30
Q & A on Commercial Law
Answer plan
This question is designed to test your knowledge of current developments in consumer law. It is not quite a ‘write all you know about the topic’ type of question. It clearly requires you to concentrate on laws which are created by the European Community, and needs an examination of recent laws and also proposed ones which have yet to be enacted. One way to deal with the question is as follows. First, deal with European Directives on consumer law which have recently been implemented. Secondly, deal with any recent Directives which have yet to be implemented. Thirdly, deal with proposed Directives and Regulations. It is a good idea to begin your answer by identifying the main Directives and proposals which are to be discussed. It is important, however, not just to write down all you know about the law or proposed law in question. You must deal with the likely or possible costs to business. That is explicitly asked for by the question.
Answer
There does indeed appear to be something near to a torrent of Directives and other initiatives coming out of Brussels. This is no doubt largely due to the fact that currently the development of consumer policy within the European Community is a priority of the European Commission. Directives actually issued in recent times include those on: Distance Selling (1997); Injunctions (1998); Amendments to the Product Liability Directive (1999); Aspects of Sale of Goods and Consumer Guarantees (1999); and E-Commerce (2000). Even more recently, there have been consultations over:
•the extent to which differences between the national laws of contract hinder or deter cross-border sales within the Community;
•proposed revisions to the Consumer Credit Directive;
•a proposed general duty to trade fairly;
•a proposed European Regulation on Sales Promotion.
This answer will begin by discussing Directives recently implemented in the UK, and will then deal with the other developments just mentioned.
Distance Selling Directive
The Distance Selling Directive was implemented in the UK by the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000. With very few
General Questions 3
exceptions, they apply to ‘distance contracts’. These are business-toconsumer sales of goods or services where the supplier makes exclusive use of distance communication up to and including when the contract is made. Thus, sales made by mail order, telephone, fax and over the internet are all within the definition, which basically catches all sales where there is no face to face contact with the customer prior to and at the time of the making of the contract. These Regulations introduced significant improvements in the rights of consumers under distance contracts. They require the giving of specified information to the consumer before the contract is made, and the giving of specified information (much the same as the pre-contract information) in durable form—which really means in a written document or (it is probably sufficiently durable) in an email sent to the consumer. The requirement of pre-contract information requires businesses which sell by telephone to be very careful to ensure that the information is given either by an automated voice prior to the consumer being put through to a real interactive human being or else by the latter person (or by a combination of both). Equally, care must be taken by those who sell goods or services to customers over the internet in the design of their websites. It is thought that very many distance selling businesses are still failing to comply with the Regulations. The rights given by the Regulations also include a cooling-off period, during which the consumer has the right to cancel a distance contract. The cooling-off period is seven working days, where the first of the seven days is either the day after the contract is made (in the case of services) or the day after the goods are delivered (in the case of goods). Information about the consumer’s right of cancellation is part of the specified information which must also be given pre-contract and in durable form. Other rights created by the Regulations include:
•a rule that, unless otherwise agreed, a distance contract must be performed within 30 days; •with a few exceptions, if, in relation to a distance contract, fraudulent use is made of a payment card (whether a credit card, debit card or store card), the card-holder is entitled to be reimbursed or to have his account re-credited.
A further change effected by the Regulations relates to unsolicited goods sent to a consumer. Whereas previously such goods were deemed to have been an unconditional gift to the consumer if, after six months, they had not been collected by the sender, now they are deemed immediately to have been an unconditional gift. Beneficial as these new Regulations undoubtedly are to
consumers, there is no doubt that they pose significant compliance requirements on businesses selling by distance contracts.
Injunctions Directive
This Directive was first implemented in UK law by the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001. It has not, however, created any increase in either compliance requirements or the costs imposed on business. This is because it does not create any additional requirements for businesses. Rather, it is aimed at securing better enforcement of requirements imposed by other pieces of legislation. Thus, the Regulations give the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and other designated bodies (including enforcement bodies in other Member States of the European Community) the right to issue ‘stop now’ orders to traders who have been found to be in breach of the laws created to implement a whole range of European Directives aimed at consumer protection. Those Directives include those on misleading advertising, doorstep selling, consumer credit, package travel/holidays, unfair contract terms, timeshares, distance selling and consumer guarantees. Subsequently, in the UK, the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001 will be superseded by the Enterprise Act 2002, when it is brought into force. Whereas the Regulations (like the Injunctions Directive itself) are confined to the enforcement of laws which enact one of the Directives aimed at consumer protection, the Enterprise Act 2002 effectively extends that new enforcement regime to traders who, in the UK, breach any law (domestic or European) designed to protect consumers. It could simply be the law of contract. The new regime, when it is brought into force, will thus remedy the shortcomings of the enforcement machinery previously contained in Pt III of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Under this, the OFT could not take enforcement action unless it could establish the trader’s persistence in a course of conduct contrary to the law and, even then, could not apply to the court for an order without first using its best endeavours to secure from the trader an undertaking of future good conduct. Better enforcement of the law in favour of consumers under these provisions is welcomed and does not impose costs on business other than on those who are not complying with existing law.
Product Liability Directive Amendment
The Product Liability Directive was implemented in the UK by Pt I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. It creates strict liability for personal injury
General Questions 5 (and damage to non-business property exceeding £275) caused by defective products. As originally enacted, the Directive allowed Member States to exclude from liability the producers of game and primary agricultural products. This was largely thanks to the strength at that time of the farming lobby in France and other Member States. The Directive did, however, impose liability on the secondary producers (that is, those who put agricultural produce through some sort of industrial process, such as canning, bottling, cooking, etc). Such secondary producers would, whenever possible, impose contract terms on the farmers from whom they purchased, thereby giving themselves the right to claim indemnity from the farmers in the event that the secondary producer was found liable in respect of a defect in the produce which was present when the farmer sold it. The amendment to the Directive was implemented in the UK by amendments made in 2000 to Pt I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. These removed the previous exemption from liability for the producers of game and primary agricultural products. This change to the law affected only a small section of business (farmers) and, even then, barely affected them, since they were generally liable in the way already explained for damage caused by defective produce supplied by them. The compliance costs are thus virtually nil, and liability costs in the event of a claim are in most cases unaffected.
E-Commerce Directive
This was implemented in the UK by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. These provide basic protection for those receiving an ‘information society service’. This certainly includes those who receive electronic commercial communications (other than fax and telephone messages) as well as those accessing commercial websites, etc. The Regulations apply irrespective of whether the recipients are consumers. The requirements must be complied with by those who provide the information society service, which includes all those who sell goods or services over the web, including via email, by telephone text messaging, etc. In this part of this answer, such people will simply be termed ‘traders’. Those receiving the electronic commercial communications or accessing traders’ websites will be referred to as ‘customers’. The Regulations are not confined to the situation where services are themselves provided electronically (for example, by being downloaded). They apply where the trader is using electronic means to sell or advertise goods or services which are to be supplied by any means (whether over the internet, in person, by post or by any other method). Equally, mere brand advertising (for example, over the internet) is also caught.
The requirements of the Regulations cover such things as:
•giving the customer specific information which is directly and permanently accessible, such as the trader’s name, geographic address, electronic address, whether prices include delivery and tax, etc;
•identifying the sender of any commercial communication (for example, an email seeking to promote a sale) and indicating that it is a commercial communication;
•identifying any unsolicited commercial email as such;
•giving clear instructions as to the technical steps to follow to make a contract and to correct any input errors;
•making any terms and conditions provided by the trader available in a way that allows the customer to store and retrieve them;
•giving prompt electronic acknowledgment of an order.
Undoubtedly, the Regulations impose compliance costs on businesses which advertise or sell goods or services over the internet. However, these costs are necessary in order to provide an essential level of consumer/customer protection. Furthermore, those traders who were already doing business with consumers over the internet will already have been required to comply with the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (discussed above), and much of the specified information required by the two sets of regulations is the same.
Directive on Aspects of Sale of Goods and Consumer Guarantees
This Directive has been implemented in the UK by the Sale and Supply of Goods Regulations 2002, which come into force on 31 March 2003. These regulations have made changes to the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The changes affect the rights of buyers who are consumers (that is, who are buying for purposes outside their businesses). The changes have the following effects:
•liability is imposed on the seller for pre-contract public statements by others (for example, in advertisements put out by the manufacturer);
•a rule is created (by a new sub-s (4) to s 20 of the Sale of Goods Act) that in the case of a consumer purchase, the risk (of accidental loss or damage to the goods) does not pass to the buyer until delivery;
•the range of remedies available to the consumer buyer is expanded to include repair and replacement of goods which do not conform with the requirements of the implied terms in ss 13–15 of the Sale of Goods Act;
General Questions 7
•contractual effect is given to the terms of any guarantee of goods sold and delivered to a consumer.
The changes made to the Sale of Goods Act are reflected in similar changes made to other Acts of Parliament regulating the supply of goods to consumers: the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The changes created by these provisions are not very extensive. The requirement to give the consumer a replacement or to repair non-conforming goods is not burdensome on business, since it will often make commercial sense anyway for the seller to offer just such a remedy. Furthermore, if such a remedy is either impossible or disproportionate, the seller will not be required to provide it. Where a seller is liable in respect of precontract statements put out by the manufacturer (or distributor/importer, etc) or under a guarantee given by that other person, the seller will often be able to recover the cost from the latter. The situations where the cost ultimately falls on the seller are likely to be relatively rare—for example, where the manufacturer who gave the guarantee has become insolvent.
Other European initiatives
Duty to trade fairly
In 2001, the European Commission issued a consultation document which sought to address certain legal barriers to cross-border trade within the Community—in particular, cross-border trade where a business in one Member State sells to a consumer in another. The Consultation Paper recognised that in the area of consumer protection, there had been a series of Directives, which had been ‘minimum’ Directives—that is, Directives which laid down minimum levels of consumer protection to be provided in each Member State, but which allowed Member States to impose more stringent levels of protection. The result had been that the laws in different Member States had imposed varying levels of legal control. For example, the Doorstep Selling Directive had required Member States to provide a mandatory cooling-off period (of at least seven days) for agreements made at the consumer’s home during (or as a result of) an unsolicited visit by a salesperson. However, in some Member States, the law now provides for a longer period and, in others, the requirement to provide a coolingoff period applies also to agreements made when the consumer solicited the visit to his house. The Consultation Paper also recognised that the various Directives relating to consumer law had been made piecemeal and that a number of them dealt only with particular sectors or practices: for example, Doorstep Selling,
Q & A
Law
Timeshares, Broadcasting, etc. The Commission therefore is proposing that there should be one main over-arching Directive requiring traders to trade fairly (or not to trade unfairly) with consumers. This Directive would be supported by codes giving guidance as to good/bad practice which would help in applying it. This is, of course, all part of the drive to harmonise the law within the European Union and thereby to remove barriers to trade. The consultation exercise has revealed that big business (represented in Britain, for example, by the CBI) is against any such development in the law, but that small to medium sized businesses find the legal differences between the different Member States to be a barrier to cross-border trade.
General contract law
In another consultation paper in 2001, the European Commission enquired about the extent to which differences in the basic law of contract of the Member States are barriers to cross-border trade. The result of this exercise could be a proposal for some (or indeed a great deal of) harmonisation of the contract law of the Member States.
Consumer Credit Directive
In a consultation exercise in 2002, the European Commission published a draft revised Consumer Credit Directive. This is likely to lead to some significant changes to this particular area of law. In particular, the draft would totally ban all unsolicited doorstep selling of credit or of goods and services on credit. It would also apparently curtail to some extent liability under s 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (colloquially known as ‘connected lender liability’) by, for example, not applying that liability in the case of purchases paid for by credit card. It would also amend the rules for the calculation of the Annual Percentage Rate of Charge (the APR).
Proposed Regulation on Sales Promotion
In 2001, the Commission proposed that there be a European Regulation on Sales Promotion. A regulation is directly applicable law which therefore will become part of the law of each Member State without any further implementation by those States. The purpose of the Regulation will be to harmonise rules on the advertising and promoting of products, so as to
General Questions 9
allow pan-European marketing campaigns. It will prevent Member States outlawing or placing restrictions on certain practices, such as offering discounts (for example, money-off coupons or 10% extra free).
There is no doubt that at least some of the above proposals will come to fruition. For sure, some revised version of the Consumer Credit Directive will appear in due course. Whether there is to be a European general duty to trade fairly or if there are to be major pan-European developments in contract law remains to be seen.
Ultimately, of course, one recognises that it is consumers themselves who pay in higher prices for any extra costs imposed on businesses. Surely the increase in prices occasioned by the developments discussed above is worth paying for what are mostly very necessary pieces of consumer protection. Certainly, as the question suggests, in order to ensure compliance, businesses will have to keep abreast of changes as they arise.
Question 2
‘Despite developments in recent times, the law of sale of goods is still permeated with the following key concepts: freedom of contract, privity of contract and caveat emptor.’
Discuss the extent to which this is true.
Answer plan
This question is a generalised one of a type often treated by students as one to tackle as a desperate last resort. Being generalised, it requires a good overall knowledge of the subject. In this particular question, three different concepts are expressly referred to and therefore it is required that each be addressed. There is every reason to take a straightforward approach and deal with one concept at a time.
Answer
Freedom of contract
The law of sale of goods was originally developed by judges in deciding cases. In the first Sale of Goods Act of 1893, Parliament set out to incorporate this common law into statute form and the 1893 Act, in its
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
and 1874. We feel at liberty to call attention to some manuscript alterations made by the author in our copy. For Coturniculus passerinus read Zonotrichia albicollis; for Myiarchus crinitus, read Tyrannus verticalis; for Archibuteo lagopus, read A. ferrugineus, the range of which is thus carried beyond any point hitherto given; for Tringa canutus read T. bairdi; for Podilymbus podiceps, read Podiceps californicus. We could wish the report were better printed; but poor presswork is the usual fate of public documents, English or American.—E. C.
K ’ R L B B , V . [54]—This is a briefly annotated list of 149 species occurring in the immediate vicinity of Brandon. The author says: “A few more species doubtless occur, especially among the Waders and Swimmers, but as they have never been actually noted, they have been rigidly excluded.” An examination of the List shows that, with perhaps one or two exceptions, he has succeeded in adhering to this principle, the result being a very reliable list as far as it goes. The further application of this rule doubtless accounts for the fact that many of the species are not stated to breed that yet no doubt do so.
The chief interest of the List lies in its bearing upon the extent of the Alleghanian fauna in the Champlain valley. The breeding of such species as Dendrœca striata and Zonotrichia leucophrys, the occurrence of Perisoreus canadensis and Picoides arcticus, and the absence of Ortyx virginiana and one or two other species, are almost the only exceptions to an otherwise strictly Alleghanian fauna.
A number of species, especially among the migrants, would seem, from what the writer says, to be by no means numerous at this locality, and no doubt his statements are strictly in accordance with his experience. We have reason to believe, however, that a more thorough search might reveal greater numbers of some of these species.
It is to be regretted that Mr. Knowlton’s List could not have appeared elsewhere than in the columns of a newspaper, both for the sake of giving it a more permanent form, and of avoiding the typographical errors inevitable under such circumstances. It may be worth while here to mention that by a slip of the pen Mr. Knowlton
has recorded Wilson’s Plover (Ochthodromus wilsonius) instead of Wilson’s Snipe.—C. F. B.
K C M F .[55]—This paper, the first of a series, seems to be the product of more careful work than previous publications on the subject. The author first states positively that the color may change after growth, the feather becoming lighter or darker as the case may be, but postpones deciding whether the change is the result of external or internal causes. Judging from the effects of stimulants upon Canaries with fully grown feathers, I have no doubt that internal changes play an important part. At least, almost white Canaries will become very yellow, gray sometimes appearing, if properly fed.
Turacin, a red or purple-violet pigment, found in the feathers of the Musophagidæ is first considered. Attention was first called to this pigment by Verreaux, who found that the purple-violet in the wing feathers of Corythaix albicristatus was destroyed by wetting, but returned on drying. Later it was observed that the water in which these birds bathed became colored dark red. Facts worthy of consideration by all systematic ornithologists. Turacin is soluble in weak alkalies, insoluble in acids, and slightly soluble in water, especially if warm. It may be precipitated as an amorphous red powder by the action of acids. In solution the spectrum of Turacin is marked by two absorption bands, between D and E, much resembling those of oxyhemoglobin. Carbon dioxide and oxygen, however, have no effect on the color or the spectrum. As to its chemical composition the author differs from his predecessors in that he denies the presence of nitrogen, though copper and iron are both present in considerable quantities. By the action of concentrated sulphuric acid two products are formed, named α Turaceïn and β Turaceïn by the author.
Zoönerythrin, another red pigment of much wider distribution, is found in red feathers, as those of the Flamingo and the Cardinal Grosbeak. It is soluble in alcohol, ether, bisulphide of carbon, and the like, from which it can be precipitated by evaporation. The solution of this pigment is often favored by first digesting the feather in a trypsin or pepsin solution. Unlike Turacin, Zoönerythrin has no absorption bands, but all is absorbed beyond E.
Zoöfulvin, a yellow pigment of much the same solubility as the preceding, occurs in the yellow feathers of the European Oriole, the Canary, and the like. The spectrum has two bands between F and G which vary in position according to the solvent used.
As yet Dr. Krukenberg has been unable to extract any green, blue, or purple pigment from feathers, so that he agrees with Bogdanon that blue feathers have no pigment as proved by transmitted light. Of this any one can at once convince himself by holding the feather of a Bluebird immersed in water between himself and a window.—J. A J .
M O P .—161. The Ruddy Duck (Erismatura rubida). By Spencer Trotter, Chicago Field, Vol. XIII, p. 23.—Brief general account, including reference to their occasional great abundance in Chesapeake Bay.
162. Bibliographical Manuals of American Naturalists. Chapter II. Dr. Elliott Coues, U. S. A. By William Hosea Ballou. Ibid., XIII, pp. 92, 103, 123, 189, 205, 221.—Rather more than 400 titles of papers and works, relating mainly to ornithology.
163. Nomenclature of the North American Grouse. By Spencer Trotter. Ibid., XIII. pp. 314, 315.—Common and scientific names of North American Grouse, with their principal synonymy and habitats.
163. The California Quails in Missouri. By H. Clay Ewing. Ibid. XIII, p. 413.—Six or seven pairs, turned out near the junction of the Missouri and Osage Rivers in March 1879, raised broods the following season near where they were liberated.
164. Bibliographical Manual of American Naturalists Chapter III. The Literature of Prof. Edward D. Cope. By Wm. Hosea Ballou. Ibid. XIV, pp. 19, 20.—Contains a few ornithological titles.
165. Can the Pinnated Grouse be successfully propagated? By H. W. Merrill. Forest and Stream, XVI, Feb. 10, 1881, p. 28.—Believes they can be “successfully propagated” with proper “regard to cover, food and range.”
166. Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator, L., V.) and Robin (Turdus migratorius, L.) in Winter [in Nova Scotia]. By. J. Matthews Jones. Ibid., XVI. March 13, 1881, p. 86.—The former
“quite common”; small flocks of the latter frequent the spruce woods every winter, in Point Pleasant Park, Halifax peninsula.
167. The “Crane’s Back.” By J. C. Merrill. Ibid., XVI, March 10, 1881, p. 105.—A Cree Indian account of the napite-shu-utle, a bird said to migrate by taking passage on the backs of Cranes. The bird is believed to be a Grebe.
168. A Hawk new to the United States. By Robert Ridgway. Ibid., XVI, Apr. 14, 1881, 206.—From Oyster Bay, Fla., provisionally referred to Buteo fuliginosus. (See this Bull., VI, Oct. 1881, p. 207.)
169. The Pine Grosbeak. By Chas. E. Ingalls. Ibid., XVI. Apr. 14, 1881, pp. 206, 207.—Observations on its habits in winter in Massachusetts.
170. Our unique Spoon-billed Sandpiper, Eurinorhynchus pygmæus (Linn.). By Tarleton H. Bean. Ibid., XVI, Apr. 21. 1881, p. 225.—Brief general history of the species, with record of its capture at Plover Bay, Eastern Siberia, and Point Barrow, Alaska.
171. Domesticated Quail. By Henry Benbrook. Ibid., XVI, May 5, 1881, p. 266.—Ortyx virginianus successfully reared in captivity to the third generation. Believes that under favorable circumstances they could be bred “as easily as Turkeys.”
172. Great Carolina Wren. By William Dutcher. Ibid., XVI, July 14, 1881, p. 473.—Record of its capture at Greenville, N. J., within four miles of New York City.
173. The Rail we shoot. [By George B. Grinnell.] Ibid.. XVII, Sept. 22, 1881, pp. 146, 147.—Classification, diagnoses and habitats of the Rallidæ of the United States.
174. Range and Rotary Movements of Limicolæ. By W. Hapgood. Ibid., XVII, Oct. 20, 1881, pp. 225–228.—An important and suggestive paper on the migrations and range of American Limicolæ. The greater part of the species of this group are noticed at length. The paper relates especially to the winter haunts of these birds, and the conclusion is pretty fairly sustained that many of them pass beyond the tropics to winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
175. Migration of Shore Birds. By M. H. Simons. Ibid., XVII, Nov. 10, 1881, p. 288.—Apropos of Mr. Hapgood’s paper (see No. 174). the writer calls attention to the fact that many kinds of Shore Birds winter in Florida and the other Gulf States. “Didymus.” under the
same caption, has some pertinent suggestions in reference to Mr. Hapgood’s paper.
176. The Herring Gull and the Ring-bill on Georgian Bay. By Rev. J. A. Langille. Ibid., XVII, Nov. 17, 1881, p. 307.—On the habits, etc., of these species at their breeding haunts in Georgian Bay.
177. Beechnuts and Woodpeckers. By C. Hart Merriam, M.D. Ibid., XVII, Dec. 1, 1881, p. 347.—A reply to several pseudonymous articles in previous numbers of this journal (Forest and Stream) in reference to the Red-headed Woodpecker’s habit of eating beechnuts. Other notes on the same subject, by various contributors, follow in this and succeeding numbers.
178. The Enemies of Game Birds. By Adolphe B. Covert [and others]. Ibid., XVII, Dec. 8, 1881, p. 366, Dec. 22, p. 407, and Dec. 29, p. 428.—Various enemies are mentioned, among whom the Red Squirrel is prominent.
179. Habits of Woodpeckers. By W. Beeke [and others]. Ibid., XVII, Dec. 15, 1881, p. 387.—In reference to their laying up stores of beechnuts for winter use, particularly refers to the Red-headed Woodpecker.
180. Inquiries about the Snow Grouse [lege Goose]. By William Dutcher. Ibid., XVII, Dec. 22, 1881, p. 407.—In reference to the distribution of Anser hyperboreus on the Atlantic coast, and to the change of plumage in the Blue Goose (A. cærulescens) in captivity.
181. The Sparrow Curse in Australia. Ibid., XVII, Dec. 22, 1881, pp. 407, 408.—Abstract of a “progress report” of a government commission appointed to investigate “alleged injuries caused to fruit growers, gardeners, farmers and others by [the imported] Sparrows.” The analysis of the testimony taken is suggestive reading in its bearing upon the “Sparrow Pest” of our own country.
182. The Snow Goose and Blue Goose. By C. S. Wescott. Ibid., XVII, Jan. 5, 1882, p. 447.—Respecting their specific diversity, and on the occurrence of the Snow Goose in Delaware Bay. This is followed by a communication (under the same caption) from Arthur Edward Brown, who states that seven Blue Geese have lived seven years in the Philadelphia Zoölogical Garden without showing any material change of color.
183. Der Schwalbenweih (Nauclerus forficatus). Von H. Nehrling. Ornithologisches Centralblatt, VI. No. 2, 15 Jan. 1881, pp. 9, 10.— Account of its habits, etc., as observed in Texas.
184. Der Gelbkopfstärling oder Gelbkopftrupial (Xanthocephalus icterocephalus Baird). Von H. Nehrling. Ibid., VI, No. 11. 1 Juni, 1881, pp. 81–84, No. 13, 1 Juli, 1881, pp. 97, 98.—General history.
185. Die Wandertaube [Ectopistes migratorius]. Von Chas L. Mann. Ibid., VI, No. 21, 1 Nov. 1881, pp. 164–166. (Aus: Jahresber. des Naturhist. Vereins in Wisconsin 1880–81.)—On the great numbers destroyed by pigeon hunters for the market. Contains interesting statistics of the slaughter and the manner in which it is prosecuted.
186. Zwei amerikanische Prairiefinken. Von H. Nehrling. Monatsschrift des Deutschen Vereins zum Schuke der Vogelwelt, VI Jahrg., No. 3, März, 1881, pp. 58–64.—General account of the “Lerchenfink (Chondestes grammica Bp.)” and the “Savannenfink (Passerculus savanna Bp.).”
187. Ornithologische Beobachtungen aus Texas. II. Von H. Nehrling. Ibid., VI, No. 5, Mai, 1881, pp. 111–121. (See this Bulletin, VI, p. 109.)
188. Nordamerikanische Vögel im Freileben geschildert. Von H. Nehrling. Die gefiederte Welt. Zeitschrift für Vogelliebhaber,Zuchter und -Händler, X Jahrg., 1881.—Under this title Dr. Nehrling contributes a series of well-written popular articles on various North American birds. In the present volume are the following: (1) Das Rubingoldhähnchen (Regulus calendula Lichtst.), l. c. pp. 14–16, 24–26. (2) Der blauköpfige oder Brewer’s Stärling, Scolecophagus Breweri, Nehrl. (S. cyanocephalus Cab....) pp. 44–46, 57, 58. (3) Der Kentuckysänger oder Buschsänger (Sylvia-Opornis [sic.]—formosa Wils. ...), pp. 100–102. (4) Die Einfiedlerdrossel (Turdus Pallasi Cab. ...), pp. 173, 174. (5) Der Gold- oder Kukukspecht (Colaptes auratus Swns. ...), pp. 228–230, 240, 241, 251–253, 265, 266. (6) Der Scherentyrann, Scheren- oder Gabelschwanz (Milvulus forficatus, Swains. ...), pp. 325, 326, 333–335. (7) Der blaugraue Fliegenfänger oder Mückenfänger (Polioptila cærulea Scl.), pp. 368–370, 380, 381, 393. (8) Der Satrap oder das Gelbkrongoldhähnchen (Regulus satrapa, Lichsts. ...), pp. 435, 436. (9) Die Bergdrossel (Oreoscoptes montanus Brd. ...), pp. 528–530.
189. Rocky Mountains-Hüttensänger oder Steinschmätzer (... Sialia arctica Swns.) Eine Vogelstudie aus den Felsingebergen. Von Fr. Trefz. Ibid., p. 81.
