header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 September 2020 / Professor Sarah Green , Matthew Barry
Issue: 7902 / Categories: Features , Commercial , Profession
printer mail-detail

Delivering the goods—lessons from Farepack

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
27526
Sarah Green & Matthew Barry discuss modernising the transfer of ownership rules
  • Why amend the transfer of ownership rules?
  • The Law Commission’s proposed rules.
  • The questions asked in the consultation paper.

The Law Commission has recently launched a consultation on a draft Bill that would amend the rules governing when consumers acquire ownership of goods under sales contracts. The consultation follows on from the Law Commission’s July 2016 Report, Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency (https://bit.ly/3itIRfj) which recommended reform of the transfer of ownership rules. In this article, we set out the case for reform, briefly explain our proposed rules, and describe the scope of our consultation.

Why amend the transfer of ownership rules?

Consumers often pay for goods in advance of receiving them. This happens whenever consumers buy goods online. It can also happen when consumers pay for goods in a physical store, but the goods have to be made to the consumer’s order, are not available to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll