Bluenose wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:40 am
Yep, that's the 64,000 dollar question all right.
If the seller was well advised, she would have had a Romalpa clause in the sales contract. That would mean she is still the owner of the goods and can repossess them. Standard clause in all sales of goods contracts. Comes in handy a lot.

Assuming there was actually any kind of contract...
[/quote]

True, and BTW I have no idea whether retention of title clauses are effective under Cambodian law.
It seems they work in China, https://www.chinalawinsight.com/2020/10 ... ivil-code/

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:35 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:12 am
What about the debtors fabrication costs and resultant added value? You final position for a remedy for breach of contract should put you in the position you would of been in, had performance occurred. Not a better one. We've done the work, we've added value, we are entitle to be paid. The contract is silent on the issue so, quantum meruit, dear boy
This would be my starting point in the dispute.

I had an RoT in my contracts a tried to collect 4 sets of 18' alloys for a BMW from a local customer. About £1000 outstanding for over 3 months.

I paid a visit, I saw the boxes, I knew they were mine and said "I'll just take them back". The shop owner said he had already paid for those ones (course of previous dealings) and he had sold the ones he still owed for because they were painted with the wrong shade of silver paint (it's a thing, trust me). He claimed he traded them to someone else. They hadn't paid him, so he hasn't paid me!

After some heated discussion along the lines of 'bullshit', I was threatened with a large tyre spanner and told to fuck off.

As I said, repossession is easier said than done.

It's not a breach of contract claim, it's a title claim. That's why the clause is so popular, it works in insolvency situations when a contract claim would get you nothing.
In your case, if your buyer was telling the truth then you did not have a Romalpa claim (but you still had a breach of contract claim). Now there is an extension to the Romalpa clause that seeks to claim the proceeds of sale but this part is much more problematic.

Yeah, I appreciate that the Romalpa is a separate claim, but in this case the overarching issue is the breach of contract. And any debtor that has fabricated a finished article with your raw materials is not going to hand them over. What you sold doesn't exist anymore, it is now something else and has added value.

Anyway, this is the KoW and the best legal clause is, who paid the judge the most money. And if it isn't you, you can take your Rompaler and stick it up your jumper

Here's a question: why turn yourself into a fraudster by issuing a dud cheque when you can not issue the cheque and just be a bad debtor? Why would you do that?

Even a cancelled cheque would have kept them out of jail, for now.
It doesn't state who the drawer on the cheque was or the husband's role in the business.
It does state "there was no cash in the account" which may have been disclosed during an investigation, but I wouldn't think the bank could divulge that to the payee. If there was actually no cash in the account, without an overdraft, wouldn't that close the account?
This could be important because if "no cash" means a zero balance, as opposed to insufficient funds, the payor can not claim 64k was unintentional, which he might have a shot at. More likely, that he expected funds to go in that day. I imagine he is currently calling on all contacts to raise said funds, and demonstrate the latter.
"Proving" it was unintentional - "a mistake of fact" - and not fraudulent - "intentional" or "culpable" - is not difficult if the money is raised, with a good lawyer (good luck). This is mainly because proving it was intentional is very difficult, being a mental state scenario.
I think the only time proof is applicable, in certain places, is "guilty, until proven rich."

Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:16 pm
Here's a question: why turn yourself into a fraudster by issuing a dud cheque when you can not issue the cheque and just be a bad debtor? Why would you do that?

Writing a bad cheque in the circumstances of this case is not usually fraud because the drawer is not obtaining any goods as a consequence of passing the cheque.
In many civil code jurisdictions, the mere act of writing a cheque with insufficient funds to back it is a serious crime. This includes Cambodia.
In English common law jurisdictions, it is rarely a crime unless the drawer obtained some benefit as a result of it. Writing a bad cheque for a pre-existing debt would not be a crime.
In the USA, the mere writing of a bad cheque is a misdemeanour in many states (e.g. California) and even a felony in some, e.g. Florida.