Saving

This section states that a person is not guilty of an offense if they pay the consignee the full amount of money or valuable security before disposing of anything in a way that goes against any previous agreement between them.

Section 389(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an exception to the offence of disposing of property in breach of an agreement with the consignee. This section essentially states that a person cannot be guilty of an offence if they dispose of something in a way that is inconsistent with an agreement they had with the consignee, as long as they pay the full amount of money or valuable security that the consignee has advanced. For example, if a person shipped goods to a consignee with an agreement to sell the goods at a certain price, but then decides to sell them for a higher price, they would technically be in breach of the agreement. However, if they pay the consignee the full amount of money that was advanced to them, then they cannot be charged with a criminal offence. This section protects individuals from being unfairly charged with criminal offences in situations where they may have made an honest mistake or had a change of plans. It also encourages individuals to make prompt payments to any consignees they may have agreements with, in order to avoid any potential legal issues. Overall, section 389(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves an important function in protecting the rights and interests of individuals in commercial transactions, while also ensuring fairness and justice in the criminal justice system.

Section 389(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides relief to individuals who may have unknowingly disposed of goods in a manner inconsistent with an agreement made with the consignee. The section essentially provides an opportunity for redemption by allowing individuals to avoid criminal liability by paying or offering to pay the full amount of money or valuable security that was advanced by the consignee. The provision acknowledges that disputes may arise between consignors and consignees involving the goods and their disposal or sale. To prevent fraudulent activities, Section 389(2) provides safeguards by making it clear that individuals who dispose of goods in a manner inconsistent with such an agreement entered into with the consignee may be accused of an offense. The agreement may involve a condition that the consignee will retain possession of the goods until the consignor makes payment or reimburses all costs incurred by the consignee in securing and disposing of the goods. What the provision aims to do, then, is limit the punishment of those individuals who may have strayed from the agreement in a manner that contradicts the rights and financial interests of the consignee. By allowing individuals to tender the full amount of money or valuable security as advanced by the consignee, the provision seeks to resolve any disputes that may have arisen between parties. The section necessarily implies a good-faith duty on both the consignor and the consignee to negotiate in good faith, especially as concerns the terms of the agreement relating to the delivery and disposal of goods. However, things can still go wrong, as some might have different interpretations of the agreement. In situations where the consignee is not aware of the agreement or where the consignor might have entered into the agreement but forgot, this law can be beneficial. In addition, Section 389(2) serves to encourage individuals to act ethically in agreements involving their consignments and to act fast if things may go wrong. While there could still be tensions surrounding negotiations between consignor and consignee, the provision provides a criminal safeguard to ensure that those who may have acted in good faith by disposing of their goods in a way that contradicts their earlier agreement are not unduly punished. Overall, Section 389(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an opportunity for individuals to resolve disputes with consignees and avoid criminal charges for disposing of goods in a manner inconsistent with the agreement made with the consignee. The provision is important in protecting the rights and financial interests of both parties involved in the agreement. However, both parties have a good-faith duty to negotiate in truth. Failure to do so may result in the invocation of this provision.

Section 389(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a defense to those who are charged with the offence of theft by conversion. It states that if a person disposes of anything in a manner that is different from an agreement with the consignee, they won't be guilty of the offence if they have paid or offered to pay the full amount of money or valuable securities that the consignee has advanced. This section offers a way of avoiding criminal charges for those involved in disputes over the disposition of goods or property. However, the use of this section requires careful consideration and strategic planning. The first thing that parties involved in a dispute over the disposition of goods or property must consider is the timing of the payment or offer of payment. This strategy requires careful thought, as it can affect the quality and credibility of your defense. A prompt payment or offer of payment after the disposition of goods or property can help maintain the social relationship between the parties. Also, prompt payment reflects goodwill and can keep parties away from litigation costs. If a party waits too long before making a payment or offer of payment, they may be viewed unfavorably, reducing the effectiveness of the defense. Secondly, parties must consider the amount of payment or offer of payment. These amounts may depend on numerous factors such as market value, interest, or storage. The payment or offer of payment should equal the full amount of money or valuable securities provided by the consignee. If it is lower than this amount, it may not be considered sufficient to avail oneself of the defense, and criminal charges may still apply. The third consideration for the parties is the form of payment or offer of payment. The payment can be made in the form of a valuable security or cash. The choice of payment instruments may depend on multiple factors such as availability, convenience, and costs. Both parties must agree on the form of payment. Also, the choice of payment instrument can have legal, practical, and financial implications for both parties, and therefore, it should be done with utmost care. Fourth, parties should be aware that the defense under section 389(2) operates in specific contexts where there is an agreement or contract regarding the disposition of the goods or property. This defense is not applicable if there is no agreement or contract regarding the disposition of the goods or property, or if the agreement or contract has been invalidated by law for some reason. Fifth, parties must consider the role of lawyers and advisors when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. It is important to seek professional advice from experienced lawyers, financial advisors, and other experts when developing a plan or strategy. Their input can help parties navigate any legal complexities and/or avoid costly mistakes. In conclusion, section 389(2) offers a viable defense strategy for parties involved in disputes where the acquisition or disposition of goods or property is in conflict. To use this defense successfully, parties must consider the timing, amount, form, legal framework, and advisory aspects of the payment or offer of payment. It is essential to plan and strategize carefully when employing this section of the Criminal Code of Canada.