Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HO 17.05.1985 TU-323 AI generated

Contract claim dismissed because retention of title clause was not agreed upon at the time of sale.

Case Number Turun HO 17.05.1985 TU-323
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed Company A's claim for the return of machinery purchased from Company B. Company A had marked delivery lists and invoices stating that ownership was retained by the seller until full payment, but the court found no evidence that this retention of title term was explicitly agreed upon at the moment of the sale contract. Consequently, the court ruled that the seller could not unilaterally impose a retention of title condition retroactively to invalidate the transfer of ownership.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sales Act 1973, Section 1; Contract Act 1973, Section 1: Ownership transfers upon agreement unless a retention of title clause is explicitly agreed upon at the time of the contract; a seller cannot unilaterally assert a retention of title condition not included in the original agreement.

Keywords

AI generated
retention of title ownership transfer sales contract unilateral condition contract formation payment terms property rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sales Act 1973, Section 1
Contract Act 1973, Section 1
AI generated
appeal_1976_turku__538
Sale of goods before installment payments transfers ownership; missing retention clause means no fraud.
appeal_1984_vaasa__2435
Court held that initiating collection proceedings did not forfeit ownership rights under a retention of title clause.
kko-precedent_1995_186
Shareholder dismissed claim against buyer for unjust enrichment due to illegal dividend distribution reversal.
kko-precedent_1991_153
Supplier liable for defective goods when professional seller fails to warn buyer of unsuitability.
kko-precedent_2002_72
Supreme Court allows party to bear litigation costs when they lost a major claim and won claims were excessive.

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

Yhtiö A oli B:n siltä ostaman koneen toimituksen yhteydessä B:lle toimittamaan lähetyslistaan ja toimitusta koskeneeseen laskuun merkinnyt, että omistusoikeus myytyyn koneeseen pidätettiin myyjälle, kunnes koneen kauppahinta oli kokonaan maksettu.

Yhtiö A:n koneen palauttamista koskeva kanne hylättiin, kun yhtiö A ei ollut näyttänyt, että kaupasta päätettäessä olisi sovittu omistusoikeuden pidätysehdosta.

Läsnä: Puotunen - Renvall - Strander (apuj.+esitt.)

Lainvoimainen