Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party.
Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 29th May and will re-open on Tuesday 30th May.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual Credit Cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any non-UK eBook orders placed after 5pm on the Friday 26th May will not be processed until Tuesday 30th May. UK eBook orders will be processed as normal.
Birke Häcker explores the English and German law on impaired consent transfers of movable property and their reversal in comparative perspective, paying particular attention to the interaction - within each legal system - between the rules and principles of contract law, property law, and the law of unjust(ified) enrichment. In two-party situations, the author focuses on the relationship between contract and conveyance and the closely related question of the transferor's position in the event of the transferee's insolvency. While German law resolves these issues by reference to the well-established principles of separation and abstraction, the relevant English law is still unsettled. The author argues for a generalized power model of so-called 'proprietary restitution' and seeks to demonstrate that conveyances by delivery are best regarded as abstract in English as well as in German law, but explains why English law nevertheless lacks the gist of abstraction à la BGB. Building on this analysis, the author then goes on to examine three-party situations. She looks first at the position of third parties who have acquired the object in question before the transferor has had a chance to reclaim it (raising issues of bona fide purchase and 'leapfrogging') and thereafter at the extent to which the transferor can assert rights to the object's traceable substitutes. As far as English law is concerned, the author shows that the supposed ‘third party rights bar to rescission' is not only unnecessary, but misconceived, and that it ought to be abolished.