VAN ERP/VAN VLIET fulfillment of the condition. Although the reversion has no retroactive effect, it de in principle work aga inst third parties Special provisions apply to hire-purchase which is regarded as a binding contract of sale in which the purchase price should be paid in instalments. The passing of ownership is postponed until full payment of the purchase price(art 7A: 1576h-x CC). Immovable property, registered ships and registered aircraft are excluded from the hire-purchase provisions, 3 yet a special statute enables hire-purchase of immovable property. 36 Until 1992 retention of ownership could be used to secure any present or future claim aga inst the buyer. The new Civil Code of 1992 curtailed the field of application drastically to claims which are directly related to the goods sold. As the 1992 Civil Code abolished security ownership (fiducia cum creditor) it had to cut down retention of ownership as well, because these means of security have in common that ownership is used to secure a chim. Apart form the purchase price of the goods sold the retention clause may secure the payment of other similar goods delivered to the buyer previously or similar goods to be delivered in future. This will reduce the risk hat ownership will be lost because of mixing(commixtio or confusio ). Secondly, retention of ownership may secure the payment of add itional work(e.g. installation) The third category of claims which may be secured are clams arising in the case of non-performance of the contract(art. 3: 9202)CC). To the extent that a retention of ownership clause exceeds these lim ited categories of claims it is void(partal voidness of the clause) The retention of ownership is strictly conf ined to the original object delivered to the buyer. Real subrogation is not acknowledged. As a result the security interest will not extend to a new object produced from the goods delivered(specificatio ) nor will it extend to(a chim for)the purchase price received by the buyer in the case of resale by him. The rules on original acquisition constitute ius cogens because it serves the interest of clearness which is most mportant in property law. If the seller wants to extend his security interest to a new product or to the a claim against a sub-purchaser, he should require the buyer to create in advance a right of pledge on the new object claim. However, this security right will take rank after any other right of pledge reated in advance at an earlier date Unlike genuine security rights such as pledge and mortgage the so-called quasi-security right of retention of ownership is not a dependent or accessorial (afhankeliik or accessor) right. Consequently, assignment of the seller's claim against the buyer to a third party does not transfer the sellers right of ownership to the third party: a separate act of transfer is needed The seller with retention of ownership takes a firm position in the buyer's insolvency. The object sold does not fomm part of the buyers insolvent estate availa ble for execution. Unlike a pledgee ormortgagee he does not need the status of separatist, because the seller's goods are not part of the buyer's patrimonium Ar7A:1576(4)BW. 24212VAN ERP/VAN VLIET 8 fulfillment of the condition. Although the reversion has no retroactive effect, it does in principle work against third parties. Special provisions apply to hire-purchase which is regarded as a binding contract of sale in which the purchase price should be paid in instalments. The passing of ownership is postponed until full payment of the purchase price (art. 7A:1576h-x CC). Immovable property, registered ships and registered aircraft are excluded from the hire-purchase provisions, 35 yet a special statute enables hire-purchase of immovable property.36 Until 1992 retention of ownership could be used to secure any present or future claim against the buyer. The new Civil Code of 1992 curtailed the field of application drastically to claims which are directly related to the goods sold. As the 1992 Civil Code abolished security ownership (fiducia cum creditore) it had to cut down retention of ownership as well, because these means of security have in common that ownership is used to secure a claim. Apart form the purchase price of the goods sold the retention clause may secure the payment of other similar goods delivered to the buyer previously or similar goods to be delivered in future. This will reduce the risk that ownership will be lost because of mixing (commixtio or confusio). Secondly, retention of ownership may secure the payment of additional work (e.g. installation). The third category of claims which may be secured are claims arising in the case of non-performance of the contract (art. 3:92(2) CC). To the extent that a retention of ownership clause exceeds these limited categories of claims it is void (partial voidness of the clause). The retention of ownership is strictly confined to the original object delivered to the buyer. Real subrogation is not acknowledged. As a result the security interest will not extend to a new object produced from the goods delivered (specificatio), nor will it extend to (a claim for) the purchase price received by the buyer in the case of resale by him. The rules on original acquisition constitute ius cogens because it serves the interest of clearness which is most important in property law. If the seller wants to extend his security interest to a new product or to the a claim against a sub-purchaser, he should require the buyer to create in advance a right of pledge on the new object or claim. However, this security right will take rank after any other right of pledge created in advance at an earlier date. Unlike genuine security rights such as pledge and mortgage the so-called quasi-security right of retention of ownership is not a dependent or accessorial (afhankelijk or accessoir) right. Consequently, assignment of the seller's claim against the buyer to a third party does not transfer the seller's right of ownership to the third party: a separate act of transfer is needed. The seller with retention of ownership takes a firm position in the buyer's insolvency. The object sold does not form part of the buyer's insolvent estate available for execution. Unlike a pledgee or mortgagee he does not need the status of separatist, because the seller's goods are not part of the buyer's patrimonium. 35. Art. 7A:1576(4) BW. 36. Tijdelijke Wet Huurkoop Onroerend Goed from 1973. A draft bill, containing new provisions on hire-purchase of immovable property, is under consideration in Parliament (Document no. 24212)