动产收费-固定/浮动法理中的问题

S. Atherton, R. Mokal
{"title":"动产收费-固定/浮动法理中的问题","authors":"S. Atherton, R. Mokal","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.593448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This practitioner-oriented paper provides a comprehensive synthesis of the factors identified in English case-law as relevant to the somewhat neglected question whether a charge over chattels is fixed or floating. The paper also conducts an exhaustive analysis of the situations in which a court might examine post-contractual conduct in order to answer this question. Further, (a) it derives a test from the recent judgment in Ashborder BV v Green Gas Power Limited [2004] EWHC 1517 to ascertain whether particular assets subject to a charge are capable, in their nature, of being disposed of in the ordinary course of the debtor's business, (b) it examines and criticises the problematic decision in Re Cimex Tissues Limited [1995] 1 BCLC 409 in the light of Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HL Cas 191 et al, and (c) in the context set by the Privy Council's advice in Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership) [1995] 1 AC 74, it highlights the importance of identifying with sufficient specificity assets intended to be subjected to a fixed charge.","PeriodicalId":166273,"journal":{"name":"The company lawyer","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Charges over Chattels - Issues in the Fixed/Floating Jurisprudence\",\"authors\":\"S. Atherton, R. Mokal\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.593448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This practitioner-oriented paper provides a comprehensive synthesis of the factors identified in English case-law as relevant to the somewhat neglected question whether a charge over chattels is fixed or floating. The paper also conducts an exhaustive analysis of the situations in which a court might examine post-contractual conduct in order to answer this question. Further, (a) it derives a test from the recent judgment in Ashborder BV v Green Gas Power Limited [2004] EWHC 1517 to ascertain whether particular assets subject to a charge are capable, in their nature, of being disposed of in the ordinary course of the debtor's business, (b) it examines and criticises the problematic decision in Re Cimex Tissues Limited [1995] 1 BCLC 409 in the light of Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HL Cas 191 et al, and (c) in the context set by the Privy Council's advice in Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership) [1995] 1 AC 74, it highlights the importance of identifying with sufficient specificity assets intended to be subjected to a fixed charge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":166273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The company lawyer\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The company lawyer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.593448\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The company lawyer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.593448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

这篇以从业者为导向的论文全面综合了英国判例法中与动产收费是固定的还是浮动的问题相关的因素。为了回答这个问题,本文还详尽地分析了法院可能审查合同后行为的情况。此外,(a)它从Ashborder BV v Green Gas Power Limited [2004] EWHC 1517最近的判决中得出一个测试,以确定受押记的特定资产在其性质上是否能够在债务人的正常业务过程中被处置,(b)它根据Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HL Cas 191等审查并批评Re Cimex组织有限公司[1995]1 BCLC 409的有问题的决定。(c)根据枢密院在Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited(破产管理)[1995]1 AC 74案中提出的意见,它强调了充分确定拟收取固定费用的资产的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Charges over Chattels - Issues in the Fixed/Floating Jurisprudence
This practitioner-oriented paper provides a comprehensive synthesis of the factors identified in English case-law as relevant to the somewhat neglected question whether a charge over chattels is fixed or floating. The paper also conducts an exhaustive analysis of the situations in which a court might examine post-contractual conduct in order to answer this question. Further, (a) it derives a test from the recent judgment in Ashborder BV v Green Gas Power Limited [2004] EWHC 1517 to ascertain whether particular assets subject to a charge are capable, in their nature, of being disposed of in the ordinary course of the debtor's business, (b) it examines and criticises the problematic decision in Re Cimex Tissues Limited [1995] 1 BCLC 409 in the light of Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HL Cas 191 et al, and (c) in the context set by the Privy Council's advice in Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership) [1995] 1 AC 74, it highlights the importance of identifying with sufficient specificity assets intended to be subjected to a fixed charge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信