Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 05.04.1984 2435/83 AI generated

Court held that initiating collection proceedings did not forfeit ownership rights under a retention of title clause.

Case Number Vaasan HO 05.04.1984 2435/83
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court ruled that the seller retained ownership of machinery sold on credit until full payment, despite initiating collection proceedings. Although the buyer defaulted and the seller sought a deficiency judgment, the court found that taking collection action did not constitute a waiver of the retention of title condition. Consequently, funds recovered from the forced auction of the machinery were confirmed to belong to the original seller.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 1 of the Act on Security for Third Parties in Enforcement, 1947; Section 1 of the Act on Retention of Title, 1947: Initiating enforcement or collection proceedings against a debtor does not automatically waive a seller's retention of title rights over goods sold on credit.

Keywords

AI generated
retention of title enforcement proceedings waiver of rights forced auction proceeds ownership transfer collection actions deficiency judgment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Act on Security for Third Parties in Enforcement, 1947
Act on Retention of Title, 1947

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1927-II-502
KKO:1927-II-502, KKO:1979-II-121
KKO:1979-II-121
KKO:1927-II-502, KKO:1979-II-121
AI generated
kko-other_2007_1209
Supreme Court held that a final enforcement judgment in a separate debt collection case is binding in a new debt collection proceeding.
kko-precedent_1990_88
Supreme Court dismisses unjust enrichment claim where debt repayment via forced auction did not violate spousal gift ban.
kko-precedent_1990_87
Supreme Court allows claimant to recover unjust enrichment from buyer who paid joint debts via auction price reduction.
kko-precedent_1992_91
Supreme Court dismisses contract rescission claims but allows separate damage claims after final default judgment.
kko-precedent_1988_68
Supreme Court dismisses claim for unjust enrichment after forced auction freed property from liens without the other half-owner's cost.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli myynyt koneita B:lle velaksi. Kauppaa koskevaan tilausvahvistukseen oli otettu ehto, jonka mukaan koneet olivat A:n omaisuutta, kunnes koko kauppahinta oli maksettu. Vaikka A oli hakenut kauppahinnan jäännössaatavan tuomioksi ja ryhtynyt ulosottotoimiin saatavan perimiseksi, hänen ei katsottu menettäneen omistusoikeuttaan koneisiin, jotka oli myyty pakkohuutokaupalla toisen velkojan saatavien suorittamiseksi. Tämän vuoksi koneista pakkohuutokaupassa kertyneiden varojen vahvistettiin kuuluvan A:lle. (Ään.)

Eri mieltä oleva jäsen katsoi, että A oli luopunut omistuksen pidätysehdosta ryhtyessään mainittuihin perimistoimiin.

Ks. KKO:1927-II-502, KKO:1979-II-121

Ellilä: Sivullisen oikeussuojan takeista ulosotossa, 1947, s. 422 ss., s. 438

Hällström: Verkan av ägareförbehåll, 1942, s. 123 ss.,

sama JFT 1937 s. 357 ss.

Nybergh: JFT 1937 s. 291 ss.

Caselius: Irroittamisoikeudet, 1934, s. 385 ss.

Tauvo: Konkurssi- ja ulosotto-oikeutta, 1979, s. 143

ss.

Takala: Konkurssi- ja ulosotto-oikeutta, s. 175

I-jaosto

Lainvoimainen