Description of the legal term Market Overt:
The concept of Market Overt comes from the common law of England and has historical significance in the realm of the sale of goods. It refers to a legal doctrine where sales of goods conducted in open and public markets during the prescribed market hours were protected, meaning that the purchaser acquired a good title to the goods, even if the seller did not have the right to sell them. The underlying philosophy of this principle was that public sales in markets encouraged commerce by giving buyers confidence in their purchases, ultimately facilitating trade and economic stability.
This principle had an exception known as “stolen goods.” Historically, if the items sold at Market Overt were stolen, the original owner could claim them within the “year and a day” period following the theft. After this period, the buyer’s title became unchallengeable, unless the original owner could show that the purchaser acted in bad faith.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 significantly altered the doctrine of Market Overt. The Act stated that generally, the seller cannot pass on a better title than they have, except in the case of purchases in Market Overt. However, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 effectively abolished the concept of Market Overt for everything except for the sale of perishable goods and certain specified markets like the sale of horses.
Regarding stolen goods, the police now have the power to seize such items, and the original owner can claim them back, regardless of whether they were bought at Market Overt or not. This change aligns British law with modern views on the protection of property rights, striking a balance between the interests of original owners and bona fide purchasers.
Legal context in which the term Market Overt may be used:
An illustrative example of Market Overt could be envisaged in the scenario of an individual purchasing a second-hand but valuable piece of antique silverware from a notorious market known for being a Market Overt. The buyer, attracted by the gleaming merchandise and provided with a plausible story of its provenance by the vendor, makes the purchase during the official market hours, obtaining what they believe is a good title.
Several months later, the original owner, from whom the silverware had been stolen, identifies their property in the buyer’s possession. Traditionally, pre-1994 legislation, the transaction made at Market Overt could have protected the buyer, had the owner not claimed within the “year and a day” limitation period. The new owner would have been entitled to keep the piece, even though it was established that they had purchased stolen goods—the market’s status assuring the sanctity of their acquisition.
Another example can be seen in the purchase of a horse. Today, specific markets, under certain conditions stipulated by law, still maintain the protection for buyers provided by Market Overt, essentially for the sale of horses. Should an individual purchase a horse at one of these designated markets, and it later emerges that the horse was stolen, the buyer might still acquire a good title to the horse, assuming all legal conditions were satisfied. It is one of the few vestiges where the ancient doctrine elements remain in force, reflecting a balance between historical legal principles and the realities of modern trade and property rights.
The understanding of Market Overt remains a valuable part of the British legal history because it showcases the evolution of the law in response to changing societal values and economic practices. It also helps illustrate how the legal system once protected commerce and now endeavors to prevent the sale of stolen goods, reaffirming the importance of upholding property rights and combating illegitimate practices in the market.
