Moral Fibres, wool processor, bought 20 bags of wool from Black Sheep, wool producer. Moral Fibres could not arrange for a truck for several days, and said it would be collected by 20 May at the latest. In the meantime, on 16 May, a new customer, Foot Traffic, a carpet manufacturer, asked Black Sheep for an urgent purchase of wool. Black Sheep was running low on stock and the next shipment of freshly shorn wool was not due to arrive until next week. Black Sheep did not want to lose this new business, so the sales manager at Black Sheep decided to sell the 20 bags of wool set aside for Moral Fibres and wait for the next delivery of wool to resupply the bags before Moral Fibres came to collect it. However, 2 days later, Moral Fibres managed to find another truck and turned up to collect it, but its order was not there.

On which case authority would the legal counsel for Foot Traffic rely to support the claim that a seller in possession in these circumstances is an exception to the nemo dat rule?

Group of answer choices

Pacific Motor Auctions Pty Ltd v Motor Credits (Hire Finance) Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 105

Bodlingo Pty Ltd v Webb Projects Pty Ltd (1990) ASC 56-001

Underwood Ltd v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement Syndicate [1922] KB 343

Gamer's Motor Centre (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Natwest Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd (1987) 72 ALR 321