Tappenden v. Artus
England and Wales Court of Appeal
3 All E.R. 213 (1963)
- Written by Melanie Moultry, JD
Facts
Anthony A. Tappenden (plaintiff), a car dealer, entered into an installment contract with William Artus for the purchase of a van. Tappenden allowed Artus to take possession of the van prior to Artus’s payment of the full purchase price. The van suffered a breakdown, and Artus arranged for its repair by Rayleigh Garage Ltd. (Rayleigh) (defendant). Rayleigh’s mechanics did not know that Artus was not the van’s owner. Artus failed to pay Rayleigh for the repairs. Shortly after the van’s breakdown, Tappenden withdrew his permission for Artus’s possession of the van. Tappenden located the van and demanded that Rayleigh return it. Rayleigh claimed a mechanic’s lien and refused to return the van until its receipt of payment for the repairs. Tappenden sued Artus and Rayleigh in Southend County Court for the van’s return and for damages. Tappenden asserted that he had not authorized the van’s repair and that he should have made any necessary repairs, because he was a mechanic. Rayleigh counterclaimed for a declaration that it had a mechanic’s lien on the van. The judge dismissed Rayleigh’s counterclaim, entered judgment for Tappenden, and ordered Rayleigh to return the van. Rayleigh appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Diplock, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.