Market overt
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2023}}
Market overt or {{lang|fr|marché ouvert}} (Law French for "open market") is an English legal concept originating in medieval times governing subsequent ownership of stolen goods.{{cite web |date=25 June 2000 |title=Appendix 60: Memorandum submitted by the Council for the Prevention of Art Theft |work=Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport: Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmcumeds/371/371ap72.htm |pages=section 3.1 |location=London |publisher=British House of Commons}} The rule was abolished in England and Wales in 1994 but it is still good law in some common law jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and British Columbia.{{Cite web|url=http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96410_01#section27|title=Sale of Goods Act|website=www.bclaws.ca|access-date=2019-05-23}}
In general, the sale of stolen goods does not convey effective title (see {{lang|la|Nemo dat quod non habet}}). However, under {{lang|la|marché ouvert}}, if goods were openly sold in designated markets between sunrise and sunset, provenance could not be questioned, and effective title of ownership was obtained.{{Cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/money/thieves-charter-nears-end-of-its-reign-the-law-of-market-overt-may-be-on-its-way-out-as-david-berry-1421817.html|title = 'Thieves' charter' nears end of its reign: The law of market overt may| website=The Independent |date = 23 October 2011}}
{{cite web|last=O'Connell |first=Anna |date=October 2005 |title=The Controversial Rule of Market Overt |url=http://www.tracemagazine.co.uk/legal/legalarchive.php?id=1 |publisher=Art Loss Review |access-date=2007-08-31 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071008095819/http://www.tracemagazine.co.uk/legal/legalarchive.php?id=1 |archive-date=2007-10-08 }}
{{cite journal |last=Lennon |first=Peter |title=A safe little earner |url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,913320,00.html|journal=The Guardian |date=15 March 2003 |access-date=2007-08-31}} The concept originated centuries ago when people did not travel much; if the victim of a theft did not bother to look in his local market on market day—the only place where the goods were likely to be—he was not being suitably diligent.{{cite court |litigants=Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corpn. v. Tpt. Brakes |vol=1949 |reporter=1 K.B.|opinion=322}}
Abolition in England and Wales
{{Infobox UK legislation
| short_title = Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994
| type = Act
| parliament = Parliament of the United Kingdom
| long_title = An Act to abolish the rule of law relating to the sale of goods in market overt.
| year = 1994
| citation = 1994 c. 32
| introduced_commons =
| introduced_lords =
| territorial_extent =
| royal_assent = 3 November 1994
| commencement = 3 January 1995
| expiry_date =
| repeal_date =
| amends = {{ubli|Sale of Goods Act 1979|Laws in Wales Act 1542|Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967}}
| replaces =
| amendments =
| repealing_legislation =
| related_legislation =
| status = current
| legislation_history =
| theyworkforyou =
| millbankhansard =
| original_text = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/32/contents/enacted
| revised_text =
| use_new_UK-LEG =
| UK-LEG_title = Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994
| collapsed =
}}
The Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994 (c. 32), whose sole purpose was to abolish market overt and its equivalent in Wales, came into force in January 1995, repealing section 22(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and section 47 of the Laws in Wales Act 1542.{{cite legislation UK |year=1994 |type=act |act=Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994 |chapter=32}}
One designated market was Bermondsey Market, in South London. In the early 1990s, several portraits by well-known 18th-century portrait painters that had been stolen from Lincoln's Inn each sold for less than £100 from an outside stall.{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/21d7526709b818873b44561e39d98567|title=Gainsborough and Reynolds Paintings Stolen|website=Associated Press }} Since they had been sold in 'market overt', the purchaser could keep them.{{cite journal |last=Burroughs |first=Katrina |date=30 May 2001 |title=In the market for a bargain|url=https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1G1-75164720/in-the-market-for-a-bargain |journal=Evening Standard |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20181006154905/https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1G1-75164720/in-the-market-for-a-bargain |archivedate=6 October 2018}}{{cite journal |date=26 August 1993 |title=Wall Street Journal |journal=Wall Street Journal |page=A9}} Estelle Morris, Minister for the Arts stated during the second reading of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill in July 2003:{{quote|I did not have information about marché ouvert in the deep recesses of my mind, but experts reliably inform me that it no longer exists. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will be surprised to learn that it has been abolished only recently. It used to exist in designated markets, including Bermondsey. I am sure that the promoter will be interested in telling the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about that. In it, items could be sold {{sic|before sunrise}}. Believe it or not, in this land of ours, people could sell stolen—my officials put "dodgy" in brackets, but we do not use that term—objects. I assure hon. Members that it has been abolished. I hope that that deals with the fears of the hon. Member for Uxbridge.{{cite hansard|url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030704/debtext/30704-08.htm |house=House of Commons |date=4 July 2003 |column_start=663 |column_end=664 |title=Hansard Debates |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070311053912/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030704/debtext/30704-08.htm |archivedate=11 March 2007}}}}
References
{{Reflist}}
External links
- [https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1994-01-12/debates/722dc6d9-6d1b-4580-b7a8-2873fb697bff/SaleOfGoods(Amendment)BillHl Speech of Lord Renton in Hansard] at the second reading of the Sale Of Goods (Amendment) Bill in the House of Lords, 12 January 1994, Hansard vol. 551
Further reading
- {{cite journal |first=Edmund H.|last=Bennett |title=High Court of Justice. Queen's Bench Division. Walker v. Matthews |journal=American Law Register |volume=30 |issue=9 |pages=574–576 |date=September 1882 |doi=10.2307/3305040 |jstor=3305040}}
- {{Cite book |title=Sale of Goods Act, 1893 |place=London |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |year=1893|url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1977/PDF/ukpga_19770071_en.pdf |isbn=0-10-850177-9 |pages=section 22 }}
- {{cite journal |first=J. G.|last=Pease |title=The Change of the Property in Goods by Sale in Market Overt |journal=Columbia Law Review|volume=8 |issue=5 |pages=375–383 |date=May 1908 |doi=10.2307/1110070 |jstor=1110070}}
- {{cite journal |title=Sale of Goods. Market Overt. Custom of City of London. Shop. Auction Room. Trover. Demand and Refusal before Writ|journal=Virginia Law Register |volume=17 |issue=12 |pages=269 |date=April 1912 |doi=10.2307/1104530|jstor=1104530 }}
- {{cite journal |first=Courtenay |last=Ilbert |title=Unification of Commercial Law|journal=Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=77–80 |year=1920}}
- {{cite journal |first=John Barker |last=Waite |title=Caveat Emptor and the Judicial Process |journal=Columbia Law Review |volume=25 |issue=2|pages=129–151 |date=February 1925 |doi=10.2307/1114303 |jstor=1114303|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2135 }}
- {{cite journal |title=Market Overt: Common Law, What Is |journal=Michigan Law Review |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=218 |date=December 1928|doi=10.2307/1279299 |jstor=1279299}}
- {{cite journal |first=L. C. B. |last=Gower |title=Sale of Goods in Market Overt |journal=Modern Law Review |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=371–372|date=July 1949}}
- {{cite journal |first=Phanor J. |last=Eder |title=Venezuela. Conditional Sales |journal=American Journal of Comparative Law |volume=5 |issue=1|pages=119–120 |date=Winter 1956 |doi=10.2307/838145 |jstor=838145}}
- {{cite journal |first=Daniel E. |last=Murray |title=Sale in Market Overt |journal=International and Comparative Law Quarterly |volume=9|issue=1 |pages=24–52 |date=January 1960 |doi=10.1093/iclqaj/9.1.24}}
- {{cite journal |first=W. G.|last=Belinfante |author2=J. G. van der Burgt |title=Sale in Market Overt |journal=International and Comparative Law Quarterly |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=676–677 |date=October 1960 |doi=10.1093/iclqaj/9.4.676}}
- {{cite journal |first=Aubrey L.|last=Diamond |title=Law Reform Committee: Twelfth Report on the Transfer of Title to Chattels |journal=Modern Law Review |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=413–419 |date=July 1966}}
- {{cite journal |first=Saul |last=Levmore |title=Variety and Uniformity in the Treatment of the Good-Faith Purchaser |journal=Journal of Legal Studies |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=43–65 |date=January 1987 |doi=10.1086/467823|s2cid=143813108 }}
- {{cite journal |first=Graham |last=Battersby |title=The Sale of Stolen Goods: A Dilemma for the Law |journal=Modern Law Review |volume=54|issue=5 |pages=752–757 |date=September 1991 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2230.1991.tb02669.x}}
- {{cite journal |first=Peter |last=Smith |title=Valediction to Market Overt |journal=American Journal of Legal History |volume=41 |issue=2|pages=225–249 |date=April 1997 |doi=10.2307/845597 |jstor=845597}}