¹ In this article the Hire-Purchase Acts of 1938, 1954 and 1964 are referred to collectively as “the Hire-Purchase Acts” or “the Acts” and respectively as “the 1938 Act,” “the 1954 Act” and “the 1964 Act.” The Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Act, 1957, is referred to as “the 1957 Act.” For other commentaries on the 1964 Act, see: J. S. Ziegel (1964) 108 S.J. 771–773, 788–791; R. M. Goode (1964) 114 L.J. 4–6, 147–149, 617–619; Harding, R. W. (1964) 3 The Solicitor Quarterly 97–111;Google Scholar R. Lowe (1964) 61 Law Soc.Gaz. 793–798; (1964) 235 L.T. 605–607; A. L. Diamond (1965) 28 M.L.R. 77–84.

² Cmnd. 1781 (July 1962), paras. 500–572.

³ The 1964 Act, s. 25 (3), repeals the Hire-Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, ss. 1–5, 8, 9, the Hire-Purchase Act, 1954 (so far as it applies to Scotland), and the whole of the Credit-Sale Agreements (Scotland) Act, 1961.

⁴ 1938 Act, s. 1, as amended by 1954 Act, s. 1 (1); for livestock the limit was £1,000.

⁵ Cmnd. 1781, paras. 550–557; see also para. 469.

⁶ 253 H.L.Deb., cols. 1138–1139, December 10, 1963.

⁷ 1964 Act, s. 1 (1), (2). The £2,000 limit, of course, refers to the total sum payable by the hirer or buyer to complete the purchase of the goods: 1938 Act, s. 21 (1).

⁸ Ibid. ss. 1 (3), (4), 33 (4).

⁹ The definition of “hire-purchase agreement” in the 1938 Act, s. 21 (1) was perhaps wide enough to include conditional sale agreements.

¹⁰ 1964 Act, s. 21 (5), Sched. 4, amending the 1938 Act, s. 21 (1). Cf. the somewhat more elegant definition in the Canadian Revised Uniform Conditional Sales Act (1965), s. 2: “‘conditional sale’ means (i) a contract for the sale of goods under which possession is to be delivered to a buyer and the property in the goods is to vest in him at a subsequent time on payment of the whole or part of the price or on the performance of any other condition, or (ii) a contract for the hiring of goods under which it is agreed that the hirer will become or have the option of becoming the owner of the goods on compliance with the terms of the contract.” Save for an important difference in (ii), the American Uniform Conditional Sales Act (1918), now superseded by the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted an almost identical definition.

¹¹ 1938 Act, s. 21 (1), as amended by the 1964 Act, s. 21 (1), Sched. 4. Why should the Acts apply only if five instalments are payable?

¹² Lee v. Butler [1893] 2 Q.B. 318. This was assumed unquestioningly until Newtons of Wembley, Ltd. v. Williams [1964] 3 W.L.R. 888Google Scholar (C.A.) decided that those provisions apply only if the buyer's disposition is made “in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent.”

¹³ See Helby v. Matthews [1895] A.C. 471.

¹⁴ See further, Section J, post.

¹⁵ 1964 Act, s. 21 (3) and Sched. 1, Pt. I.

¹⁶ Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 55 (1).

¹⁷ Ibid. s. 21 (4) and Sched. 1, Pt. II.

¹⁸ There may be disincentives, too, e.g., doubts as to a seller's ability, after terminating the agreement, to recover overdue instalments: cf. Hewison v. Ricketts (1894) 63 L.J.Q.B. 711 with Brooks v. Beirnstein [1909] 1 K.B. 98.Google Scholar

¹⁹ 1938 Act, s. 4 (1); but see 1964 Act, Sched. 1, para. 5 (1).

²⁰ s. 62 (1) defines a buyer as “a person who buys or agrees to buy.” Cf. Helby v. Matthews, supra.

²¹ 1964 Act, ss. 3 (4), (6), 4–9, 11, 20, 24–24; cf. s. 10 and 1938 Act, s. 5 (d), (e), and s. 6 as amended by 1964 Act, Sched. 4.

²² 1964 Act, ss. 4–9; see further, Section C, post. Also credit-sale agreements where the price is payable by fewer than five instalments fall outside the Acts: 1938 Act, s. 21 (1).

²³ 1964 Act, s. 2: but agreements made by bodies corporate before 1965 remain protected by the earlier Acts and by parts of the 1964 Act: 1964 Act, Sched. 6, para. 2.

²⁴ 1938 Act, ss. 2 (2) (a), (d), 3 (2) (a), (c).

²⁵ Cf. Campbell Discount Co., Ltd. v. Gall [1961] 1 Q.B. 431Google Scholar; Mercantile Credit Co., Ltd. v. Hamblin [1964] 3 W.L.R. 798.Google Scholar

²⁶ 1964 Act, s. 3 (6).

²⁷ Ibid. 8. 3 (1).

²⁸ Quaere, how will this affect mail order business where the hirer or buyer is invited to cut out a coupon from a catalogue or newspaper advertisement?

²⁹ This problem is peculiar to England and other parts of the Commonwealth where the hire-purchase agreement is concluded between finance company and hirer and not between trader and hirer. In New Zealand, Canada and the United States, where the conditional sale agreement is almost invariably concluded between buyer and trader (who later assigns the agreement to a finance company), it is easy for the buyer to be handed a copy on the trader's premises. Finance companies, therefore, now have another reason for adopting the more rational North American system.

³⁰ 1964 Act, s. 3 (2), (3).

³¹ Ibid. s. 5 (2), (3), (4), (6), amending the 1938 Act, as. 2 (2), 3 (2).

³² Ibid. ss. 3 (4), 33.

³³ Ibid. ss. 22, 33.

³⁴ S.I. 1964, No. 1567.

³⁵ 1964 Act, ss. 3 (5), 22 (3); but the court may excuse any inadvertent noncompliance which has not prejudiced the hirer or buyer: Ibid. s. 3 (5); 1938 Act, s. 2 (2), proviso, s. 3 (2), proviso.

³⁶ Ibid. s. 20 (1); but the court may dispense with copies: s. 20 (2).

³⁷ Ibid. s. 20 (3), (4), (5); cf. 1938 Act, s. 6, as amended by the 1964 Act, Sched. 4. Curiously, a buyer or guarantor may thus obtain a copy of a memorandum of a credit-sale agreement under £30, to which he is not entitled at the outset. All documents in this paragraph are subject to the Board of Trade's power to regulate legibility: s. 22 (2).

³⁸ Ibid. s. 20 (6). Cf. Yeoman Credit, Ltd. v. Latter [1961] 1 W.L.B. 828Google Scholar (indemnity) with Western Credit, Ltd. v. Alberry [1964] 1 W.L.R. 945 (guarantee).Google Scholar

³⁹ Cmnd. 1781, paras. 511, 517, 741–748, 802–810.

⁴⁰ Ibid. paras. 518, 519. Cf. the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, s. 10 (1), whereby every absolute bill of sale must be explained to the grantor, and attested, by a solicitor.

⁴¹ Ibid. paras. 520–529.

^41a Several Canadian Provinces have announced impending legislation on these lines to meet similar problems there.

⁴² 1964 Act, s. 4 (1).

⁴³ Ibid. s. 4 (5).

⁴⁴ See 254 H.L.Deb., cols. 786–795, January 16, 1964; Ibid., cols. 831–839, January 21, 1964; 255 H.L.Deb., cols. 69–79, February 4, 1964.

⁴⁵ 1964 Act, ss. 3 (1), (2), (3), 4 (5), 5 (2), (7), amending the 1938 Act, ss. 2 (2), 3 (2).

⁴⁶ Ibid. s. 5 (3), (4), (5). For the relevant regulations, see S.I. 1964, No. 1567, Pt. III and Sched., Pt. II.

⁴⁷ Ibid. s. 5 (6).

⁴⁸ Ibid. ss. 4 (2), (3), 6 (1), 11 (1); for the meaning of “antecedent negotiations,” see s. 24 (2).

⁴⁹ Ibid. s. 6 (1), (3).

⁵⁰ Ibid. s. 4 (4).

⁵¹ Ibid. s. 8 (1).

⁵² Ibid. s. 8 (2), (4).

⁵³ Ibid. s. 8 (3).

⁵⁴ For what amounts to an agreement to take goods in part-exchange and for the meaning of “part-exchange allowance,” see Ibid. s. 9 (6).

⁵⁵ Ibid. s. 9 (1), (2), (4), (5).

⁵⁶ Ibid. s. 9 (3). Presumably a hirer or buyer who, through ignorance of s. 9 (3) or preference, accepts back the goods in less good condition than when delivered in part-exchange, loses his statutory lien and cannot assert it to the extent of the diminution in value of the goods returned to him.

⁵⁷ Ibid s. 7 (2).

⁵⁸ Ibid. 8. 7 (3), (4).

⁵⁹ Ibid. s. 7 (3).

⁶⁰ Defined, Ibid. s. 24 (2).

⁶¹ Ibid. s. 7 (7).

⁶² Ibid. s. 7 (4), (5).

⁶³ Ibid. s. 7 (4), (6).

⁶⁴ Ibid. s. 23 (2) (a).

⁶⁵ Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App.Cas. 337.

⁶⁶ Hedley Byrne & Co., Ltd. v. Heller & Partners, Ltd. [1964] A.C. 465Google Scholar, recently followed in Canada in Dodds & Dodds v. Millman (1964) 45 D.L.R. (2d) 472 (Brit. Col.).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Andrews v. Hopkinson [1957] 1 Q.B. 229Google Scholar, where the dealer was also liable under the principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ [1961] 1 Q.B. 431. See, generally, Hughes, A. D., “Agency in Hire-Purchase Transactions” (1964) 27 M.L.R. 395–411.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1184.

⁷⁰ [1963] 1 Q.B. 476. See also, Stoneleigh Finance, Ltd. v. Phillips, The Times, March 24, 1964.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Tenth Report, on Innocent Misrepresentation: Cmnd. 1782 (1962) paras. 19, 20.

⁷² Cmnd. 1781, para. 544.

⁷³ Ibid. para. 450.

⁷⁴ 1964 Act, s. 23 (2) (6).

⁷⁵ Ibid. s. 10 (1).

⁷⁶ Ibid. s. 24 (2).

⁷⁷ Ibid. s. 24 (5).

⁷⁸ Ibid. s. 10 (3).

⁷⁹ Ibid. s. 10 (2).

⁸⁰ Such “cut-off” clauses have frequently been upheld in Canada, despite great hardships to hirers and buyers: see, e.g., Killoran v. Monticello State Bank (1921) 61 S.C.R. 528Google Scholar and cf. Federal Discount Corp. Ltd. v. St. Pierre (1962) 32 D.L.R. (2d) 86 (Ont.), noted in (1962) 40 Can.Bar Rev. 461.Google Scholar Consequently they have been prohibited or curtailed by legislation in several jurisdictions. See further J. S. Ziegel (1962) 14 Univ. Toronto L.J. 143 at pp. 145–146, 156.

⁸¹ “Dealer” is here used for brevity, though s. 11 refers to “any person who conducted any antecedent negotiations,” who must have so acted “in the course of a business carried on by him”: s. 24 (2), (3).

⁸² See Section C, ante.

⁸³ 1964 Act, s. 11 (1), (2).

⁸⁴ Ibid. s. 11 (3), (4).

⁸⁵ Ibid. s. 11 (5), (6).

⁸⁶ Ibid. s. 23 (2) (b).

⁸⁷ See Section E, post.

⁸⁸ Cmnd. 1781, paras. 428–473, 530.

⁸⁹ Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 55.

⁹⁰ 1964 Act, s. 12 (2), substituting a new subsection for s. 8 (2) of the 1938 Act.

⁹¹ Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 14 (1).

⁹² United Dominions Trust (Commercial), Ltd., and Financings, Ltd.: see The Financial Times, December 21, 1964, pp. 1, 7Google Scholar; Ibid. December 22, 1964, pp. 8, 9.

⁹³ 1938 Act, s. 8 (3). Standard form agreements will certainly purport to exclude the condition, but the court does not easily accept that the other statutory requirements have been observed: Lowe v. Lombank, Ltd. [1960] 1 W.L.R. 196.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid. s. 8 (1) (d), (3).

⁹⁵ 1964 Act, s. 12 (1) (6).

⁹⁶ Ibid. s. 12 (3), adding a new subsection 3A to s. 8 of the 1938 Act.

⁹⁷ Ibid. s. 12 (3), adding a new subsection 3B to s. 8 of the 1938 Act.

⁹⁸ Ibid. s. 23 (2) (c).

⁹⁹ Wright v. Melville (1828) 3 C. & P. 542.

¹ See, generally, Ziegel, J. S., “The Minimum Payment Clause Muddle” [1964] C.L.J. 108–128.Google Scholar

² Associated Distributors, Ltd. v. Hall [1938] 2 K.B. 83Google Scholar, followed by the Court of Appeal, and not overruled in the House of Lords, in Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. [1961] 1 Q.B. 445 (C.A.)Google Scholar; [1962] A.C. 600 (H.L.).

³ 1938 Act, s. 5 (b).

⁴ Ibid. s. 4 (2).

⁵ Cf., New South Wales Hire-Purchase Act, 1960, ss. 12 (6), 15 (1), (2), (3); New Zealand Hire Purchase Agreements Act, 1939, ss. 2 (4), 3 (1), 4; Canadian Revised Uniform Conditional Sales Act, s. 12; American Uniform Commercial Code, Art. 9–504.

⁶ See 253 H.L.Deb., cols. 1140–1141, December 10, 1963; 254 H.L.Deb., cols. 729–757, January 16, 1964.

⁷ Re Apex Supply Co., Ltd. [1942] Ch. 108.Google Scholar

⁸ Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. [1962] A.C. 600.Google Scholar

⁹ Financings. Ltd. v. Baldock [1963] 2 Q.B. 104.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Overstone, Ltd. v. Shipway [1962] 1 W.L.R. 117.Google Scholar

¹¹ 1964 Act, Sched. 4.

¹² Cf. s. 14 of the 1938 Act, which remains unamended.

¹³ Government spokesmen in Parliament seemed far from clear as to the effect of s. 5 (c) in its original form and seemed to overlook its amendment by the Bill; but they opposed clarification by the introduction of a “true measure of damages” rule for fear that owners might be encouraged to terminate agreements for very trivial breaches or that minimum payment clauses which could otherwise be held penal would thereby be validated: 254 H.L.Deb., cols. 762–763, January 16, 1964; Ibid. col. 888, January 21, 1964; 697 H.C.Deb., col. 429, June 24, 1964. These arguments are untenable since: (i) reputable owners repossess only as a last resort; (ii) where less than one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid, repossession for trivial breaches is still possible (after service of a default notice if the breach is non-payment of money); and (iii) Mercantile Credit Co. Ltd. v. Cross, infra, shows how easily questions of penalties may be avoided. The whole distinction between termination by the hirer and by the owner is factually and legally quite artificial.

¹⁴ 1938 Act, 88. 11–13.

¹⁵ The Financial Times, December 29, 1964Google Scholar; (1965) 109 S.J. 47; [1965] 1 C.L. 323.

¹⁶ Reynolds v. General & Finance Facilities, Ltd., The Times, November 7, 1963Google Scholar; (1963) 107 S.J. 889.

¹⁷ 1964 Act, s. 15 (1), (2), (3), (4). In view of ss. 16, 17, next discussed, 8. 15 (6) (b) and s. 15 (7) provide for service of such a notice where the hirer has died.

¹⁸ Ibid. s. 15 (5).

¹⁹ Ibid. s. 15 (8).

²⁰ Australian legislation allows th e hirer a period before or after repossession in which to remedy the default and recover the goods in such cases: cf. New South Wale s Hire-Purchase Act, 1960, ss. 13 (1), 14, 15 (1) (a), 16 (1) (b), (c), Sched. 3.

²¹ 1938 Act, s. 12.

²² 1964 Act, s. 14 (1).

²³ Ibid. s. 14 (2).

²⁴ 695 H.C.Deb., cols. 736–746, May 14, 1964.

²⁵ 1964 Act, s. 18.

²⁶ Ibid. s. 19, modifying the operation of the 1938 Act, s. 14.

²⁷ Lord Shepherd estimated that some 4,000,000 vehicles were held on hirepurchase and that, as against 1,410,296 vehicle transactions entered into in 1963, some 700 vehicles were wrongfully disposed of, with an average of £200 remaining owed in such cases, involving a loss of some £140,000 in all: 254 H.L.Deb., col. 912, January 21, 1964. Some years ago the President of the Federated Council of Sales Finance Companies estimated that in Canada wrongful dispositions of motor-vehicles occurred in about ½ per cent, of all motor-vehicle credit purchases. No recent figures are available.

²⁸ See United Dominions Trust (Commercial), Ltd. v. Parkway Motors, Ltd. [1955] 1 W.L.R. 719Google Scholar; United Dominions Trust (Commercial), Ltd. v. Cartwright, The Times, March 22, 1961.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cmnd. 1781, paras. 536, 537.

³⁰ Hire-Purchase (No. 2) Bill [H.L.], 1963, clauses 22–26, or clauses 27–31 after amendment in Standing Committee F of the House of Commons.

³¹ It is not a document of title within the Factors Act, 1889, s. 1 (4): Joblin v. Watkins & Roseveare (Motors), Ltd. [1949] 1 All E.R. 47.Google Scholar But sale of a motor vehicle without the log book puts the buyer on inquiry: Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corporation, Ltd. v. Transport Brakes, Ltd. [1949] 1 K.B. 322, 338, per Denning L.J.Google Scholar; and will not be a sale “in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent” within the Factors Act, 1889, s. 2 (1): Stadium Finance, Ltd. v. Robbins [1962] 2 Q.B. 664.Google Scholar

³² By comparison with the loss of about £140,000 on wrongful dispositions in 1963 (see note 27, ante), the estimated cost of providing facilities for storing and safeguarding several million log books was some £700,000 in the first year: 254 H.L.Deb., col. 914, January 21, 1964. This figure presumably included capital outlay on storage facilities.

³³ 1964 Act, s. 27 (5).

³⁴ The 1964 Act, s. 34 (3), provides that no account is to be taken of the 1938 Act, s. 1 (as amended) or of the 1964 Act, s. 2 (which respectively establish the £2,000 price limit and exclude corporate bodies) in construing any enactment whereby “hire-purchase agreement” or any similar expression has the same meaning as in the 1938 Act. unless the enactment expressly refers to hire-purchase agreements to which the 1938 Act applies; and the 1964 Act, s. 29 (1) provides that in Part III “hire-purchase agreement” has the meaning assigned to it by the 1938 Act, s. 21 (1), and does not refer expressly to hirepurchase agreements to which the 1938 Act applies. Yet curiously, for the purposes of Part III, s. 29 (4) defines “the hirer” to mean “the pereon who at the material time (whether the agreement has before that time been terminated or not) is the hirer in relation to that agreement for the purposes of the Hire-Purchase Act 1938, including a person who at that time is, by virtue of section 13 (1) of that Act, deemed to be a bailee of the vehicle as therein mentioned” (italics supplied), for s. 13 (1) of that Act can apply only where the hire-purchase price does not exceed £2,000.

³⁵ For definition, see note 37, post.

³⁶ 1964 Act, s. 27 (1), (2).

³⁷ Defined as “a purchaser who, at the time of the disposition made to him, carries on a business which consists, wholly or partly, (a) of purchasing motor vehicles for the purpose of offering or exposing them for sale, or (b) of providing finance by purchasing motor vehicles for the purpose of letting them under hire-purchase agreements or agreeing to sell them under conditional sale agreements”; and “private purchaser “means” a purchaser who, at the time of the disposition made to him, does not carry on any such business”: Ibid. s. 29 (2).

³⁸ Ibid. s. 27 (3).

³⁹ Ibid. s. 27 (6); e.g., for larceny as a bailee, or for conversion or detinue.

⁴⁰ Ibid. s. 29 (3).

⁴¹ Presumably where the first private purchaser buys the vehicle from a trade or finance purchaser, he obtains such title as the owner or seller then has, if that be better or worse than the title he had when the hirer or buyer disposed of the vehicle to the original purchaser; s. 27 (3) leaves this uncertain.

⁴² 1964 Act, s. 29 (1).

⁴³ e.g., under the Factors Act, 1889, s. 2 (1) or the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 25 (2).

⁴⁴ Assignees are also included in the definitions of “hirer” and “buyer” in the 1938 Act, s. 21 (1) and the 1964 Act, Sched. 1, para. 6, respectively, as made applicable by the 1964 Act, s. 29 (4).

⁴⁵ Cf. s. 27 (4) with s. 27 (2) of the 1964 Act.

⁴⁶ Ibid. s. 28.

⁴⁷ See the definition of “the hirer or buyer”: Ibid. s. 29 (4) (cited in note 34, supra).

⁴⁸ The 1957 Act does not distinguish between credit-sale and conditional sale, defining “credit-sale” as “the sale of goods in pursuance of an agreement under which the whole or part of the purchase price is payable by instalments”: s. 4 (1).

⁴⁹ 1964 Act, s. 30.

⁵⁰ Ibid. s. 31.

⁵¹ Ibid. s. 32 and Sched. 3, adding a new section 2A and Schedule to the 1957 Act.

⁵² This question has been the subject of heated debate in Canada and the United States for several years. Many so-called “Truth in Lending” Bills have been introduced in both countries, both at national and provincial or state levels, to compel disclosure in all kinds of consumer credit agreements of the effective rate of interest. See further, J. S. Ziegel (1962) 14 Univ. Toronto L.J. 143 at pp. 145, 155–156.

⁵³ i.e., 1938 Act, ss. 9, 11–17.

⁵⁴ i.e., ss. 14–19.

⁵⁵ Ibid. s. 35 (3).

⁵⁶ Cf. the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882, s. 9.

⁵⁷ There were 58,644 such actions in county courts in 1963: Cmnd. 2384 (1964), p. 61.

⁵⁸ Cf. Lawrence v. Hayes [1927] 2 K.B. 111.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Amos and Walton, Introduction to French Law, 2nd ed., 1961, pp. 112–115.

⁶⁰ See J. S. Ziegel (1962) 106 S.J. 168–169.

⁶¹ e.g., the Ontario Used Car Dealers Act, 1964, Stat.Ont. 1964, c. 121.

⁶² New South Wales Hire-Purchase Act, 1960, s. 11.

⁶³ Ibid. s. 2 (1), defining “statutory rebate.”

⁶⁴ 1938 Act, ss. 4 (1), 5 (c), as amended by the 1964 Act, s. 1 (5) and Sched. 4 respectively. The Molony Committee regarded rebates as too complicated for compulsive determination: Cmnd. 1781, para. 533. See also J. S. Ziegel, “The Eebate Question” (1961) 105 S.J. 394–395.

⁶⁵ 1964 Act, s. 18 (6).

⁶⁶ See Belsize Motor Supply Co. v. Cox [1914] 1 KB. 244Google Scholar; Whiteley, Ltd. v. Hilt [1918] 2 K.B. 808.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ New South Wales Hire-Purchase Act, 1960, s. 9. Cf. Cmnd. 1781, para. 535.

⁶⁸ 1938 Act, ss. 11–13.

⁶⁹ 1964 Act, s. 15.

⁷⁰ New South Wales Hire-Purchase Act, 1960, ss. 14–16; New Zealand Hire Purchase Agreements Act, 1939, s. 6. The American Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9–506, confers somewhat similar rights.

⁷¹ New South Wales Hire-Purchase Act, 1960, s. 32; New Zealand Hire Purchase Agreements Act, 1939, s. 8. English courts have no such power: Galbraith v. Mitchenall Estates, Ltd. [1964] 3 W.L.R. 454.Google Scholar

⁷² See Which!. Spring 1959, pp. 7–13Google Scholar; Ibid. May 1961, pp. 103–107; J. S. Ziegel (1961) 105 S.J. 815–816.

⁷³ Cmnd. 1781, paras. 561, 562.

⁷⁴ New South Wales Hire-Purchase Act, 1960, s. 26.

⁷⁵ Ibid. s. 37.

⁷⁶ Cmnd. 1781, paras. 568–571.

⁷⁷ These Acts provide, inter alia, that a moneylender must be licensed annually, may not do business except at his licensed premises and must not advertise or invite people to borrow money, nor employ agents for that purpose. His agreements must be evidenced in writing and state the interest charged as a rate per cent, per annum. Unlicensed moneylenders cannot recover money lent. But a finance company which buys goods and lets them on hire-purchase is not, in law, moneylending: cf. Olds Discount Co., Ltd. v. Cohen [1938] 3 All E.R. 281nGoogle Scholar; Olds Discount Co., Ltd. v. John Playfair, Ltd. [1938] 3 All E.R. 275.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Ziegel, J. S., “Hire-Purchase Agreements: A Plea for Greater Realism” (1960) 104 S.J. 996–1001.Google Scholar By such loans North American banks finance a substantial and growing proportion of all consumer credit purchases: see Report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, p. 204, Table 11–1 (Ottawa, 1963).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Bills of Sale Act, 1878; Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882. See generally, Waldock, Mortgages, 2nd ed., Chap. 5.

⁸⁰ 1882 Act, ss. 7–9.

⁸¹ Ex p. Crawcour (1878) 9 Ch.D. 419; McEntire v. Crossley Brothers, Ltd. [1895] A.C. 457. Both cases concerned conditional sales with postponed transfer of title, but the principle applies equally to hire-purchase.

⁸² “Consumer Finance and the Law” in Current Legal Problems, Vol. 17, 1964, pp. 80–92.Google Scholar

⁸³ Because the goods comprised in a mortgage bill of sale must be specifically described in an attached schedule: 1882 Act, s. 4.

⁸⁴ Cf. Harrold v. Plenty [1901] 2 Ch. 314 (mortgage)Google Scholar with Carter v. Wake (1877) 4 Ch.D. 605 (pledge).

⁸⁵ For a survey of Australian, Canadian, English and American legislation, see Ziegel, J. S., “Retail Instalment Sales Legislation: a Historical and Comparative Survey” (1962) 14Univ. Toronto L.J. 143–175.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ For a brief outline of Article 9 and its possible reception in Ontario, see J. S. Ziegel, “A New Deal in Personal Property Security Law” (1963) 6 Can. Bar J. 374–379. For fuller accounts, see Gilmore, “The Secured Transactions Article of the Commercial Code” and Kripke, “The Modernization of Commercial Security under the Uniform Commercial Code” (1951) 16 Law and Contemporary Problems 27 and 183, respectively.