As the fishing season slowed down in the fall, Bob decided that this might be a good time to find a real bargain in used equipment for his boat. He found a navigation instrument for sale for $15 000, a great price. However, he only had $10 000, so he borrowed the other $5000 from the bank. He also signed a chattel mortgage on the equipment as collateral in favour of the bank, which promptly registered its interest in the Personal Property Registry. Bob made his payments for a while, but things started to go badly for him. He was unable to make any further payments, although he still owed more than $3000. Desperate and not thinking too clearly, Bob sold his boat to his friend Claude for $50 000 and left for Central America with the funds. When the bank realized what Bob had done, it located the boat and demanded that Claude pay off the $3000+ or lose the navigational equipment. Claude was outraged because he had paid Bob in good faith and argued that he had never borrowed anything from the bank and therefore owed it nothing. Which one of the following statements accurately describes the legal situation here?
▸ If the bank does seize the equipment and sells it for $2000, the bank can still sue Claude for the $5000.
▸ If the bank had failed to register the chattel mortgage, it would still have a better right to the equipment than Claude, because the mortgage was signed before Bob sold the boat to him.
▸ Because Bob transferred the boat and equipment to Claude, that was an assignment of his obligations and he no longer owed the debt.
▸ Claude is right, and the bank's only remedy is to sue Bob.
▸ If Claude is unwilling to pay off the $3000+, the bank has the right to remove the equipment from the boat.
Quick Reply
