Analysis of Exceptions to the Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Rule

URKUND
Urkund Analysis Result

Analysed Document: LAW OF CONTRACT-II PROJECT on sales of goods act.docx
(D50242522)
Submitted: 4/5/2019 2:28:00 PM
Submitted By: avinashbhargav.ug@nliu.ac.in
Significance: 30 %
Sources included in the report:
BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf (D31560640)

contract2.docx (D50049494)
contracts project trimester 3.docx (D49339631)
viesakan.docx (D31316205)
SOGA.pdf (D49291912)
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/nemo-dat-quod-non-habet/
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=150
https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-laws/the-sale-of-goods-act-1930/transfer-of-title/
http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/consol_act_OK/soga128/
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ilr/article/download/64074/34500
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s02.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54
http://www.ddegjust.ac.in/studymaterial/bba/bba-201.pdf
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1695/Nemo-Dat-Quod-Non-Habet.html
https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Sale-of-Goods-By-P-S-Atiyah-9780273022060-/333036213726
http://www.kkhsou.in/eslm//E-SLM/DEGREE/BCOM/3rd%20Sem%20Commerce%20%20PDF/BRF
%20English/Unit%205%20Indian%20Partnership%20Act.pdf
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nemo+dat+rule
https://quizlet.com/12713215/title-to-goods-flash-cards/
https://pipfa.org.pk/PressReleaseAttachment/Solutions%20-%20Summer%20Exam%202018.pdf
https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.%20Biol.%20Sci.,%204(5)7-14,%
202014.pdf
http://www.kenyalawresourcecenter.org/2011/07/exceptions-to-nemo-dat.html
49633853-d6ce-44e0-bd12-c6d4d5aa63b6
Instances where selected sources appear:
62
URKUND LAW OF CONTRACT-II PROJECT on sales of goods act.docx (D50242522)
THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
THIRD TRIMESTER FINAL DRAFT OF LAW OF CONTRACT -II TOPIC-
0: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ilr/article/download/64074/34500 96%
NEMO DAT QUOD HABET (No one can give what he does not
have)
SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO: AVINASH BHARGAV Ms. NEHA SHARMA 2018 BALLB (Hons.)
129 SECTION- B ENROLLMENT NO. - A-2036
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the Project titled-“
have)”
has been prepared and submitted by Avinash Bhargav who is currently pursuing his B.A.LL.B.
(Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment of Constitutional Law-I course
. It is also certified this is original research report and this project has not been submitted to
any other university, nor has been published in any journal.
Date:
Signature of the Teacher:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This project has been made possible by the unconditional support of
many people, I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) V.
Vijayakumar, and Ms. Neha Sharma for guiding me throughout the development of this
project into a coherent whole by providing helpful insights and sharing their brilliant
expertise. I would also like to thank the members of the library staff and computer section for
the cooperation in making available the books and accessing the internet even during their
free time. I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all the moral support
and encouragement. - AVINASH BHARGAV
TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. INTRODUCTION 2. NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET 3.
0: viesakan.docx 78%
SECTION 27 OF THE SALES OF GOODS ACT 1930. 4. SALE BY PERSON NOT BY THE OWNER-
GENERAL RULE. 5. ESTOPPEL. 6. ESTOPPEL OF OWNER. 7. ESTOPPEL BY WORDS OR CONDUCT.

8. ESTOPPEL BY NEGLIGENCE. 9. EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE 10. SALE BY MERCANTILE
2
AGENT 11. MERCANTILE AGENT 12. POSSESSION BY MERCHANTILE AGENT 13. POSSESSION
MUST BE WITH CONSENT 14. SALE IN MARKET OVERT 15. REMEDIES 16. SECTION 28-
0: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/nemo-dat-quod-non-habet/ 50%
SALE BY CO-OWNER 17. SECTION 29- SALE BY PERSON UNDER A VOIDABLE CONTRACT. 18.
SECTION 30- DISPOSITION BY SELLER REMAINING IN POSSESSION. 19. DISPOSITION BY
BUYER REMAINING IN POSSESSION 20.
CONCLUSION 21. BIBLIOGRAPHY 22. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.
INTRODUCTION:
0: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1695/Nemo-Dat-Quod-Non-Habet.html 47%
NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET: The Indian Contract Act 1872 comprises of 266 sections
which was previously divided into many different chapters and Section 1 to 75 deals with
general principles of the contract and from Section 76 to 123
of the original enactment deals with sale of goods. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act
expresses this principle and the given principle is given in the
0: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 53%
section 21
of the British Sale of Goods Act 1979.
The maxim
Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
basically means that “
no one
gives what they do not have”
is a legal rule which sometimes also called as Nemo Dat rule which means that the purchase
of a possession
of some property
from someone who has no ownership right
on that property also denies the purchaser any ownership title.
3
It is also said that this maxim is to the maxim “Nemo plus juris ad alium transferre potest
quam ipse habet” rule, which
also means that “one cannot transfer to another more rights than one has”. The second half of
Part III of the Sales of Goods Act 1979 is entitled as “Transfer of Title” and deals with the
various cases in which a seller with no right of goods may pass a good title to the third party.
Basically, in these cases the question which arises in the mind is that which of two innocent
people is to suffer for the fraud of the third party. Let take an example as
0: http://www.kenyalawresourcecenter.org/2011/07/exceptions-to-nemo-dat.html 82%
A thief steals goods and sells them to someone who buys in good faith
and for some value and a
person hands goods to an agent to obtain offers and the agent sells
them with authority and disposes of the proceeds and after that
a swindler buys goods, induces the seller to let him have them on credit and promptly resells
or pledges them for whatever he can get;
a person sells
goods, but retains possession of them and fraudulently resells them to a third party. In all
these cases the law has to choose between rigorously upholding the rights of the owner to
his property, on the one hand, and protecting the interests of the purchaser who buys in good
faith and for value on the other hand. The
Chapter III of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 comprising Sections 18 to 30 which deals with
the effects of the contract with respect to the transfer of property between the buyer and the
seller. As Lord Denning once put it: “
0: https://quizlet.com/12713215/title-to-goods-flash-cards/ 95%
4
In the development of our
law, two principle have striven for mastery. The first is
for
the protection of property: no one can give a better title than he himself possesses
and
the second is
for
the protection of commercial transactions: the person who takes in good faith and for value
without notice should get a better title. The first
principle has held sway for a long time, but it has been modified by the common law itself
and by statute so as to meet the needs of our times.” 1
The
first of these principles is
of course still the general rule, and is affirmed by the Act in Section 21(1):
0: contracts project trimester 3.docx 100%
Subject to this
Act,
where
goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the
authority or with
the
consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better
title to the goods than the seller had,
unless
the
5
owner of the
goods
is
by his conduct precluded from denying the
seller’s authority to sell.
This
rule
is frequently dignified by the use of Latin in the tag nemo dat quod non habet, or more shortly
nemo dat. Some difficulty has arisen with the words ‘where goods are sold’ in this section, and
it has been held that this does not encompass a mere agreement to sell. 2 But this is a
somewhat confusing decision: the first part of Section 21(1) the negative part stating that a
non-owner cannot pass title. As will become apparent some of the exceptions to the nemo dat
rule are replicated in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 from the Factors Act 1889. Since this text is
intended to cover not only dispositions of goods by sale, the Factors Act and not the Sale of
Goods Act will be referred to. The law is, however, the same. To the nemo dat rule the law has
developed exceptions within both the common law and, more frequently, under statute.
Before turning to the remedies of the parties these exceptions will be discussed in turn: (a)
Sale in market overt. (b) Sale by a mercantile agent. (c) Sale by a seller in possession. (d) Sale
by a buyer in possession of the goods. (e) Sale under a voidable title. (f) Sale of cars subject to
a hire purchase agreement. (g) Estoppel. (h) Miscellaneous exceptions by way of possession
proceedings against goods.
SECTION 27
OF
0: contract2.docx 55%
THE SALES OF GOODS ACT 1930:
SALE BY PERSON NOT BY THE OWNER- GENERAL RULE: The provisions of this
Sales of Goods Act 1930 subject to any other
law for the
particular time being where the goods or the property is
0: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s02.pdf 77%
sold by a person who is not the owner
6
of that property
and who does not sell them under any authority
and with consent of owner
of the goods, the buyer does not have better title on
the goods than the seller
had,
except
the
possessor of the goods
is by manner excluded from repudiating the seller’s authority to sell.
It is
provided that
when
mercantile agent with the consent of the owner of the goods, or
may be in the
possession of goods or of
a document
of title to goods, and any sale made by him, while acting in the regular course of business as
a mercantile agent shall
be as valid
sale
as if he was
expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to make
the same,
7
provided that
the buyer
act was
in good faith and not at the time of the contract of sale notice that the seller has no authority
to
sell.
There are two parts in the Section 27 in which
the first part of this section expresses the explanation of the Latin Maxim Nemo Dat Habet
Quod Non and the second part of this section
deals with the two exceptions to the given principle. This Section 27 gives two exceptions and
more exceptions to this maxim and this principle
are given in section 28, 29 and 30 of the Sale of Goods Act.
ESTOPPEL: The
term estoppel is originated from a French word ‘Estoup’ which literally mean “shut the
mouth”.
Basically the purpose of the estoppel is that a person who does an act in a good faith at the
words or by the conduct of other person should neither be suffered nor be deceived while
forming a contract of sale. The owner
of the property or
the goods by his act or any conduct or any omission permits
the buyer to believe that the seller
of the goods has the right to sell
the goods and the real owner
of the goods cannot refuse such sale. Let take an example when a person
8
sell goods of his mother in the presence of his mother, his mother makes no objection but
she was allowed to refuse her son’s authority to sell and the sale
which was made by her son was binding on her. So basically Estoppel arises from a
representation which the seller of goods had the absolute authority to sell the goods and
when that representation of facts or by conduct
is innocently acted upon by the buyer, it becomes too late to deny the seller’s authority
and the
Representation
may arise from words, declarations or it may arise from an act or omission
of that act. Estoppel may be created by the omission of an act or one’s duty while forming a
contract of sale. Let take an example in which if a person left his watch or any other accessory
on the seat of any park or playground or in coffee shop’s table and by chance it gets into the
hands of the purchaser then this is not an answer to true owner to say that this leaving of the
ring or watch is his carelessness or anything else which makes the finder able to pass it off as
his own. 3 Let take another example in which the owner of the car delivered his car for repair
but due to some reasons the mechanic does not complete the repairs and kept the car until
the car got crashed and after that he sold it to an gullible buyer for a very nominal price, from
this the buyer got the car repaired for 226 pounds. The court of law held the owner entitled to
recover the car from the mechanic but after paying him the expenses which occurred in the
repairing of the car. 4
Exceptions:- Estoppel arises from:- 1. act or omission - but the act or omission should be a
legal obligation 2. Negligence - it is not mere a negligence but it must be with regard to the
person.
TITLE BY ESTOPPEL:
ESTOPPEL OF OWNER:— But though the general rule is as stated above, the owner may be
estopped by his conduct from denying the seller’s title and setting up his
title against the buyer.
9
The words “
unless the owner of the
goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the
seller’s authority to sell”
refer to estoppel of the
owner. The said words carve out an exception to the general rule. The estoppel may arise
by words or conduct which wilfully uses another to alter his position and to induce him to act
on that belief or stands by negligently or culpably and allows another to contract on the faith
and understanding as if me seller has the authority to sell, or is the owner or has apparent
title to the goods.
Negligence on the part of the owner, in order to constitute conduct precluding him from
denying the seller’s authority to sell,
must be more than mere negligence in the management of his own affairs and must amount
to
a disregard of his obligations towards the
buyer. 5 ESTOPPEL BY WORDS OR CONDUCT: The best example of an owner holding out
another to have authority to sell the goody is contained in Shaw v Commissioner of
Metropolitan Police [1987] 1 WLR 133 and also Farquarson Bros v J. King &, Co. Ltd [1902] AC
325; Eastern Distributors v Goldring [1957] 1 QB 371). In that case of a young foreign student,
had purchased a Porsche motor car for £16,000. When the time came for him to return home
he advertised the car for sale in a newspaper for £17,000. One L responded to the advert
stating that he was a car dealer and that he had a buyer interested in the car. O gave L
possession of the car together with a letter stating that he had sold the car to L. L then agreed
to sell the car to B, who gave him a Cheque by way of deposit which bounced. L then
disappeared, the police took possession of the car and brought an application to determine its
ownership. Noting that B had very little merit in their claim given that they had not paid a
penny for the car, it was held that B had not obtained a good title to it. Whilst O’s conduct in
giving L possession together with the letter was clearly conduct precluding him denying L’s
authority to sell, there had been no actual sale, merely an agreement to sell, consequently
neither Section21 of the 1979 Act nor the common law applied. However, had there been a
sale and an exchange of money, would have been precluded from denying B’s title. Where the
representation is by words as clear as those in Shaw, little difficulty arises as to whether the
10
owner has held the seller out as having sufficient authority to sell. However, where the
representation is by conduct, the picture is not so clear. In Commonwealth Trust Ltd v Atokey
[1926] AC 720 had agreed to sell cocoa to L, but there remained some haggling to be done
over the price. L in turn sold the cocoa to B, who paid L the agreed price. Applying Lickbarrow
v Mason (1787) 2 TR 63, it was held that this was sufficient for O to be estoppel from denying
the validity of the sale to B. It is important to note that all had done here was to agree to sell
goods on credit and give over possession of them. Given the courts reaction after these cases
Lickbarrow v Mason and Commonwealth Trust Ltd v Atokey can probably be considered a high
water mark; more will generally be required in order for an estoppel to be established.
ESTOPPEL BY NEGLIGENCE: It was noted at the start of this section that the broad principle in
relation to estoppel was established in Lickbarrow v Mason (1787) 2 TR 63 that ‘wherever one
of two innocent parties must suffer by the acts of a third, he who has enabled such third
person to occasion the loss must sustain it’. By their own carelessness, S the owner of goods
may enable another to be in a position whereby they may deal with the owner‘s goods. The
question therefore becomes when will of the owner be sufficiently careless as to protecting
his goods from the meddler for the courts to End that they should be bound by and suffer
from this carelessness. As will be seen, the answer to this would seem to be very rarely.
Indeed, the only case where estoppel by negligence appears to have succeeded in
Coventry Shepherd &
Co. v Great Eastern Railway Co. (1883) II QBD 776. In that case the railway had accidentally
issued two delivery orders
in respect of the same goods to the same person. That person was therefore enabled to
represent to the plaintiff that the goods were still at his disposal (when in fact he had
otherwise disposed of them under the other delivery order) and accordingly pledge the goods
with them. It was held that the railway company were estopped by their own negligence.
Coventry Shepherd & Co. v Great Eastern Railway Co. is however an old case. In Mercantile
Credit Co. Ltd v Hamblin [1965] 2 QB 242, O wished to raise some money against the security
of her car. Trusting A she signed some hire purchase forms in blank and allowed him to
negotiate with the hire purchase company to see how much money he could raise against the
car. In fact, he completed the forms representing that he sold the car to the company and that
they bailed it back to under a hire purchase agreement. The Court of Appeal held that whilst
did a duty of care to the hire purchase company that, in the particular circumstances of the
case, she had not broken that duty in trusting A. It seems hard to imagine circumstances of
greater carelessness than to trust another with forms signed in blank and to trust another to
complete them.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE: The following are the exceptions to the rule that no seller
of goods can give to the buyer thereof a better title than his own- 1.
11
0: SOGA.pdf 55%
Where person without title selling the goods with consent or authority of the owner (section
27). 2. Where an owner
of goods is precluded by his conduct to deny the sellers authority to sell 3.
Sale by a mercantile agent (proviso to section 27). 4.
Sale by one
0: SOGA.pdf 66%
of
the
joint owners (section 28). 5.
Sale by a person in possession under a voidable contract (
section 29). 6. Sale by
one who has already sold the goods but continues
in possession thereof [
section 30(1)]. 7.
Sale by buyer obtaining possession before the property in the goods has vested in him [
section 30(2)]. 8.
Where an unpaid seller resells the goods when he
has exercised his right of lien or stoppage in transit (
section 54). All these exceptions are necessary for the protection of persons who deal
bonafide for value without notice and person dealing with mercantile agents.
The words “
subject to the provisions of
12
this Act and of any
other
law for the time being in force”
are
wide enough to provide further exceptions as under: 1. Sale by
a pawner under his power of sale (see section 176 of Indian Contract Act, 1872). 2. Sale by a
Court Receiver under his powers under O 40 of Civil Procedure Code 1908. 3. Sale by Official
Assignee under the Insolvency Law or by Liquidators under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
4. Sale by a mortgagor in possession to a buyer without notice of encumbrance. 5. Sale by a
finder of goods pursuant to the provisions of section 169 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 6.
Sale by a master of the ship in case of necessity.
SALE BY MERCANTILE AGENT. Mere
possession of goods or of the documents of title to goods
gives no power to dispose of them. Thus a clerk in a merchant’s office who as such is
possessed of delivery orders or other documents of title for the purposes of his employment
has no power to dispose of them. But it is different when the person in possession of goods is
a mercantile agent, such as a factor, broker or auctioneer. Lord Wright in Lowther v. Harris 6
observed that a mere shopkeeper or servant cannot be a mercantile agent. A person who has
his own shop and gives receipts and takes cheque in his own registered business name and
earns commission is not a mere servant but agent even if his discretionary authority is limited.
A mercantile agent may act for only one principal and may not have general occupation as
agent. Persons who deal in picture and object of art on commission can be mercantile agent.
A sale by such a person of goods or the documents of title to goods will pass a good title to
the buyer- 1. if he
0: https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-laws/the-sale-of-goods-act-1930/transfer-of-
title/ 57%
is
in possession of the goods or of the documents
with the consent of the
13
owner; 2.
if the
sale is
made by him
when acting in the ordinary course of business
of a mercantile agent; 3.
if
the buyer acts
in good faith and has
not at the time the contract of sale notice that the seller has no authority to
sell.
The
common law of agency is preserved by the Factors Act 1889 and accordingly the acts of an
agent acting within the course of his express, implied or ostensible authority are binding upon
his principal. A detailed analysis of the law of agency outside the scope of this text and the
reader is directed to a general work on contract law.
Section 2
of the Factors Act 1889 (the 1889 Act) provides
that
where
a mercantile agent is,
with the consent of the owner,
in possession
of goods or of the documents
of
title to
14
goods,
any sale, pledge, or other disposition
of the goods,
made by him
when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent,
shall,
subject to
the provisions of
this Act,
be as valid as if he
were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make
same;
provided that the person taking under the disposition acts
in good faith, and has not at the time of the disposition notice that the
person making the disposition has not authority to
make
the same.
The
general effect of 5. 2(1) is clear where a mercantile agent is given possession of goods by their
owner, the agent may dispose of them as if he had authority to do so and the buyer will gain a
good title. There are, however, a number of phrases within the subsection which must be
discussed: 1. Mercantile agent. 2. Possession of the goods. 3. Consent of the owner. 4. Sale,
pledge or other disposition. 5. Ordinary course of business. 6. Good faith and without notice.
7. Valid as if expressly authorised.
MERCANTILE AGENT:- The proviso to the section validates a
sale by
15
0: http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/consol_act_OK/soga128/ 80%
mercantile agent. A mercantile agent is one who has,
in the
customary course of his
business as such agent,
authority either to sell goods, or to consign goods for the purposes of sale, or to buy goods,
or
to raise money on
the security of goods [
section 2(9) of
the
Sale of Goods
Act, 1930]. A person having authority to consign goods is called a forwarding agent.
The term “mercantile agent” does not include a mere servant or caretaker,
or one who has possession of goods for carriage, safe custody, or otherwise as an
independent contracting party.
It
only includes persons whose employment corresponds to that of some known kind of
commercial agent,
e.g., a factor, an auctioneer or a broker. 7 Mercantile agent: Section1(1)
of the 1889 Act
defines ‘
mercantile agent’ as meaning
16
a mercantile
agent
having in the
customary course of his business as
Sue agent
authority either to sell goods or
to consign goods for the purpose of sale or to buy goods or to raise money on
the security of goods.
The
mere fact that a person is given possession of the goods
will not be sufficient to make him an agent of the owner. Nor will he be an agent if he is given
the goods for another purpose --for example as a warehouseman (Oppenheimer v
Attenborough [1908] 1 KB 221; Lowther v Harris [1927] 1 KB 393). He should, however,
be given possession of the goods for the purpose of Sale or ‘other disposition in
the customary course of business’ if he is to be brought within the definition. However, this
does not mean that the agent must take the shape of a well-recognised form of such an
agent, i.e., a factor or broker. In Weiner v Harris [1910] 1 KB 285 jewellery was sent to F who
ran a jeweller’s shop in Hatton Garden on the following terms: The goods referred to in that
book mentioned are your property, and to remain so until sold or paid for, they being only left
with me for the purpose of sale or return, and not be kept as my own stock. The goods I
receive from you are to be entered at cost price, and my remuneration for selling them is
agreed at One half the prom. It was held that on its true construction F was a mercantile
agent. Whilst F kept his own stock of jewellery it was clear that this stock was to be kept
separate and the fact that he was to take his profit as a percentage, as opposed to a fixed
purchase price together with the fact that he would never become owner of the property,
pointed towards agency. This case also shows that a mercantile agent can be such even
though he acts in another capacity (as seller of his own goods) as well. The fact that the agent
has never acted as such before does not prevent him being an agent (Mortgage Loan &
Finance Co. of Australia v. Richards (1932) SR (NSW) 50), nor does the fact that he has only one
principal (Lowther v. Harris [1927] 1 KB 393). It therefore seems that the courts have given a
liberal interpretation to the phrase. However, the goods must be entrusted to the agent for
the purpose of disposition and not some unrelated purpose. Finally, 36 of the 1889 Act states
that where the sale or disposition is made by a clerk or employee of the agent who is
17
authorised to make such transactions in the ordinary course of business, the disposition is
deemed to have been made by the agent.
To constitute an agent he must be 1.
a mercantile
agent 2.
having the
customary course of his business as such agent authority to sell goods,
etc.
A mere insurance agent who on a particular occasion is entrusted with pictures to sell on
commission is not a mercantile agent. It cannot be said of one who is merely an insurance
agent that he has “
0: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54 88%
in the customary course of his business as such agent authority,”
etc. A
pledge therefore of the pictures given to him for sale would not be valid.
POSSESSION BY MERCHANTILE AGENT:-
The mercantile agent must have
possession of the goods or of document
of title to the goods
in his capacity as mercantile agent and
not
in other capacity. So where a warehouseman who was also a broker had the goods qua
warehouseman, it was held that he could not validly pledge the goods received by him in his
capacity as a warehouseman.
18
Mercantile agent is in possession of goods even if he obtains possession
of goods by his fraud. So in Lowther v Harris 8 where mercantile agent was allowed to take
certain tapestry away in van after the real owner (plaintiff) had sanctioned of the goods to the
buyer, it was held that a mercantile agent was in possession though he (mercantile agent)
never intended sale to be made to just obtained by fraud possession of the goods from the
real owner to pawn it to a pledgee. But mercantile agent is not in possession of the goods
when he had stolen the goods from the real owner (plaintiff) who never parted with it.
POSSESSION MUST BE WITH CONSENT:
To validate a
sale by
a mercantile agent under
this section
he
must
be
in possession
of the goods or of the documents of title to
the
goods
with the
consent of the owner.
This implies that he must have been
entrusted with the goods, mercantile agent and not in any other capacity, in other words, the
capacity in which the agent receives the goods must be one which clothes him with authority
to sell or pledge the goods. Thus if a house is let furnished to a person who happens to be an
auctioneer, it is let to him as a tenant and not as an auctioneer. He cannot therefore sell the
furniture by auction and give a good title to the buyer. The consent contemplated by this
19
section is consent in fact. If the goods or documents are obtained by theft there is no consent.
9 Similarly there is no consent if the goods or documents are obtained by what is equivalent to
theft, as where A falsely pretending that he is B receives goods or documents from the owner.
But it is different if the buyer, who is the mercantile agent, has received the bill of lading
directly from the seller together with the invoice and bill of exchange. It may be held
0: SOGA.pdf 75%
that the buyer received the bill of lading with the consent of the owner [
section 30(2)]. 10
SALE IN MARKET OVERT This exception to the nemo dat rule is included only for historical
purposes it has been abolished. Formerly, sales of goods made in a recognised market or in a
shop in the City of London were deemed to be an exception to the rule and the buyer would
acquire a good title to them. However, the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995 abolished this
rule in relation to any such sales made after the Act came into force (3 January 1995).
REMEDIES: The nemo dat rule does not create any specific cause of action or remedy, it acts as
a defence to another cause of action brought by one of the injured parties. The purpose of
this section is therefore to direct the reader to the appropriate section in relation to each of
the parties. The owner of the goods may either bring an action against the person who has
sold them in excess of authority, stolen them from him or who is now in possession of them.
An action for conversion of the goods will lie against the thief, although in practice most
thieves or fraudsters have no money and cannot be traced. Where the owner expects the
buyer to have gained a good title to the goods he can either sue against the agent’s contract
of agency (if appropriate) or in conversion against the agent. If the owner does not believe
that the buyer has obtained good title to the goods, he may bring an action requesting a
declaration as to the ownership of the goods and possession of them. The buyer may defend
such proceedings on the basis that he has a good title by virtue of an exception to the nemo
dat rule.
SECTION 28
SALE BY CO-OWNER: Ordinarily a co-owner could transfer his share only and hence this
section enables a co-owner to sell not only his own share but also of his other co-owners. This
section lays down three conditions for validating a sale by one of the co-owners, 1. he must be
in sole possession by permission of his co-owners. 2. the purchaser acts in good faith, i.e., with
honesty. 3. the purchaser had no
notice
0: 49633853-d6ce-44e0-bd12-c6d4d5aa63b6 88%
at the time of the contract of sale that the seller had no authority to sell. “
20
This
is the fourth exception
of
0: https://pipfa.org.pk/PressReleaseAttachment/Solutions%20-%20Summer%20Exam%
202018.pdf 100%
the
rule that a man cannot make a valid sale of goods which do not belong to
him. It is
a reproduction of Exception 2 to section 108 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A, B and C own
certain cattle in common. A is left by B and C in possession of a cow which he sells to D. D
purchases bona-fide. The property in the cow is transferred to D. This section has been
applied to a joint Hindu family”. 11
SECTION 29.
SALE BY PERSON UNDER A VOIDABLE CONTRACT: This section is, in effect, the first part of
Exception 3 to section 108 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 up to the words “buys them in
good faith of the person in possession.” The wording of the section is taken from section 23 of
the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893. It is the fifth exception to this
0: https://pipfa.org.pk/PressReleaseAttachment/Solutions%20-%20Summer%20Exam%
202018.pdf 100%
rule that a man cannot make a valid sale of goods which do not belong to
him. It deals
0: http://www.ddegjust.ac.in/studymaterial/bba/bba-201.pdf 97%
with the case of
a sale by
a person who has obtained possession of goods under
a contract
voidable under section 19 or section 19A of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872.
21
Section 19 as s that where consent to an agreement defined in section 18, the agreement is
caused by coercion as defined in Section 15 and the Fraud as defined in the section 17 as
misrepresentation as defined in section 18,
0: https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.%20Biol.%20Sci.,%204(5)
7-14,%202014.pdf 88%
the agreement
is a
contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was
so caused.
Section 19
A says that where consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence as defined in Section
16,
0: https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.%20Biol.%20Sci.,%204(5)
7-14,%202014.pdf 79%
the agreement
is a contract voidable at the option of the patty whose consent was
so caused.
Section 29 validates
0: http://www.ddegjust.ac.in/studymaterial/bba/bba-201.pdf 96%
a sale by a person who has obtained possession of goods under a contract
voidable at the option of the other party on the ground of coercion, fraud, misrepresentation
or undue influence, provided
0: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=150 62%
the contract has not been rescinded by it. Other party at the time of the sale.
A, by misrepresentation has B’s computer delivered for sale. A in turn sells it to C, who
purchases it bona-fide without knowing the misrepresentation practiced on B. The purchase
by C is complete, but will have a right of action for damage against A for the loss sustained by
him by such misrepresentation. A person may obtain possession of goods under a contract
22
which is voidable at the opinion of the lawful owner on the ground of fraud,
misrepresentation or coercion or on the ground of undue influence. Possession so obtained is
not by the free consent of the lawful owner as defined in section 14 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872. It is nevertheless possession of consent, and the person in possession may make a valid
pledge
0: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=150 76%
of the goods provided
the contract has not been rescinded at the time of
the
pledge.
SECTION 30
DISPOSITION BY SELLER REMAINING IN POSSESSION: Sub-section (1) deals with dispositions

by a seller continuing in possession of the
goods
0: http://www.kkhsou.in/eslm//E-SLM/DEGREE/BCOM/3rd%20Sem%20Commerce%20%
20PDF/BRF%20English/Unit%205%20Indian%20Partnership%20Act.pdf 67%
after sale. It says
that
where
a person has sold goods but continues in possession of them or of documents of title to
them, he may sell them to a third person, and if such person obtains delivery thereof
in good faith and without notice of the previous sale,
he gets a good title to them,
although the property in the goods has passed to the first buyer. A pledge, mortgage or any
other disposition of the goods
is equally valid. The disposition may be made not only by the seller in possession, but also by a
mercantile agent acting for him. A sells goods to B. B for his own convenience leaves the
goods with A. A fraudulently sells the goods to C, who
buys them
23
title/ 43%
in good faith and without notice of the
sale to B. C gets a good title to
the goods. The delivery of the goods
by A to C has the same effect as if A were expressly authorised by B to deliver the goods. This
transaction is valid if A pledged or mortgaged the goods to C. It is stated above that to enable
the seller to pass a good title- 1.
0: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nemo+dat+rule 78%
the seller must continue
possession of the goods or of the documents of title to
goods
as a seller. Possession as a hirer or bailee of the goods from the buyer after delivery of the
goods to him will not do. 2.
0: SOGA.pdf 100%
the goods must have been delivered to the buyer or the documents of title
must have been transferred to him. A mere agreement for sale, pledge or then disposition will
not do. 3. good faith and absence of notice of the previous sale on the part of the second
buyer.
DISPOSITION BY BUYER REMAINING IN POSSESSION: Sub section (2) deals with the converse
case of a sale or other disposition by the buyer of goods in which the property has not yet
passed to him. The section says that if
the
title/ 65%
buyer obtains possession of the goods, before the property in them has passed to him,
with the consent of the seller, he may sell, pledges otherwise dispose of the goods
to a third person, and if such person obtains delivery
24
of
the goods
in good faith bid without notice of
any lien or other right of the original seller
in respect of
the
goods,
he will get a good title
to them as to an unpaid seller’s lien, as Section 47 as to his right of stoppage in transit.
CONCLUSION: The legal system concerned with the protection of private property, and not
open to any countervailing policies, would assert with unabated vigour the maxim nemo dat
quad non habet, by which the transferee’s title could never exceed the title of the transferor
and would always be vulnerable to a superior title. If, on the other hand, a legal system
pursued to the same degree a policy of facilitating transactions, again without countervailing
policies, it would maintain that a transferee could trust in the appearance of ownership
created by possession of goods in the hands of {he transferor. The common law takes an
intermediate position, starting from the nemo dat maxim and grafting on a number of
exceptions. A number of these are statutory ones enacted in response to the needs of die
commercial community. This pragmatic resolution of the irreconcilable demands of private
property protection and the facilitation of transactions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. BLACKSTONE’S SALES & SUPPLY OF GOODS & SERVICES, BLACKSTONE

PRESS LTD. 2. OXFORD’S
0: https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Sale-of-Goods-By-P-S-
Atiyah-9780273022060-/333036213726 62%
THE SALES OF GOODS, BY M.G. BRIDGE 3. THE SALE OF GOODS BY P.S. ATIYAH,
PITMAN PUBLISHING. 4. MULLA THE SALE OF GOODS ACT &THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Pollock & Mulla - The Sales of Goods Act: The book originally
authored by Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, provides a section-wise
study of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 in light of judicial and legislative developments. The
commentary also compares the provisions of the Indian Act with the relevant sections of the
English Act. The new edition covers case law developments in India and UK on the subject.
Incorporates discussion on legislative developments in UK such as the enactment of
Consumer Rights Act 2015. Provides comparative analysis with the UK Sale of Goods Act on
25
which the Indian Act is based. Important precedents dating back to the 1800s have been
retained to explain the historical background and development of the Act.
1 Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corpn v Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] 1 KB 332, 336-7. 2 Shaw v.
Commissioner of Met Police [1987] 1 WLR 1332. 3
farquharson Bros v. kings Co (1902) AC 325,336 4 Greenwood v.Bennet (1973) 1 QB 195. 5
Heap v Motorists Advisory Agency, Ltd, ( I923) 1 KB 577. 6 Lowther v Harris, (1926) A11 ER Rep
352: (1927) 1 KB 393. 7 Heyman vFlewker; (1863) 143 BR 205 : 32 LJCP 132; Cole v North
Western Bank, (1875) LR 10 CP 354, 372-373. 8 Lowther v Harris, (1927) 1 KB 393 : (1926) All ER
Rep 352. 9 Lowther v Harris, (1927) 1 KB 393 z (1926) All ER Rep 352; See also Central National
Bank v United Industrial Bank, AIR 1954 SC 181 : [1954] SCR 391 for a similar approach under
section 30(2) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 10 Cahn v Pockett’s Bristol Channel Co, (1899) 1 QB
643, 654, 659. 11 Taruck Chunder v Jodeshur; (1873) 11 Bengal LR 193
26
Hit and source - focused comparison, Side by Side:
Left side: As student entered the text in the submitted document.

Right side: As the text appears in the source.
Instances from: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf
6 53% 6: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 53%
section 21 The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a
of the British Sale of Goods Act 1979. source in Urkund's Archive.
The maxim
Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
basically means that “
no one
gives what they do not have”
is a legal rule which sometimes also called as Nemo Dat rule

which means that the purchase of a possession
of some property
from someone who has no ownership right
27
13 95% 13: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 95%
the protection of commercial transactions: the person who takes The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
in good faith and for value without notice should get a better is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a
title. The first source in Urkund's Archive.
principle has held sway for a long time, but it has been modified
by the common law itself and by statute so as to meet the needs
of our times.” 1
The
first of these principles is
21 71% 21: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 71%
she was allowed to refuse her son’s authority to sell and the sale The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
source in Urkund's Archive.
22 100% 22: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 100%
is innocently acted upon by the buyer, it becomes too late to The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
deny the seller’s authority is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a
27 52% 27: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 52%
28
Co. v Great Eastern Railway Co. (1883) II QBD 776. In that case The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
the railway had accidentally issued two delivery orders is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a
29
Instances from: contract2.docx
15 55% 15: contract2.docx 55%
THE SALES OF GOODS ACT 1930: the Sales of goods act, 1930, Section 27 reads, “Sale by person
not the owner.—Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any
SALE BY PERSON NOT BY THE OWNER- GENERAL RULE: The other law for the
provisions of this
Sales of Goods Act 1930 subject to any other
law for the
title against the buyer. title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the
goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s
The words “ authority to sell:
unless the owner of the
goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the
seller’s authority to sell”
31 100% 31: contract2.docx 100%
The words “ The words ‘subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other
Law for the time being in force’ are
30
subject to the provisions of
this Act and of any
other
law for the time being in force”
are
a pawner under his power of sale (see section 176 of Indian a pawner under his power of Sale- Section 176 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872). 2. Sale by a Court Receiver under his powers Contract Act 2. Sale of a Court Receiver under his powers – Oder
under O 40 of Civil Procedure Code 1908. 3. Sale by Official 40 of the Civil Procedure Code
Assignee under the Insolvency Law or by Liquidators under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956. 4. Sale by a mortgagor in 3. Sale by Official Assignee under the Insolvency Law or by
possession to a buyer without notice of encumbrance. 5. Sale by Liquidators under the Indian Companies Act
a finder of goods pursuant to the provisions of section 169 of the
4. Sale by a mortgager in possession to a buyer without the
Indian Contract Act, 1872. 6. Sale by a master of the ship in case
notice of any encumbrance to the actual owner
of necessity.
5. Sale by a finder of goods under the provisions of the Section
169 of the Indian Contract Act
6. Sale by a master of the ship in case of necessity
31
The mercantile agent must have The mercantile agent must have the possession of the goods or
documents of title relating to the goods in his capacity as
possession of the goods or of document mercantile agent and not
of title to the goods
in his capacity as mercantile agent and
not
32
Instances from: contracts project trimester 3.docx
14 100% 14: contracts project trimester 3.docx 100%
Subject to this Subject to this Act, where goods are sold by a person who is not
their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or
Act, with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better
where title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the
goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s
goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who
authority to sell. (2)
does not sell them under the authority or with
the
consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better
title to the goods than the seller had,
unless
the
owner of the
goods
is
by his conduct precluded from denying the
seller’s authority to sell.
33
by words or conduct which wilfully uses another to alter his by words or conduct wilfully causes another to alter his position
position and to induce him to act on that belief or stands by and to induce him to act on that behalf as well as in situations
negligently or culpably and allows another to contract on the where the true owner stands by negligently or culpably and
faith and understanding as if me seller has the authority to sell, allows another to contract on the faith and understanding as if
or is the owner or has apparent the seller has the authority to sell, or is the owner or has
apparent title to the goods. 18
title to the goods.
Negligence on the part of the owner, in order to constitute Negligence on the part of the owner, in order to constitute
conduct precluding him from denying the seller’s authority to conduct precluding him from denying the seller’s authority to
sell, sell, must be more than mere negligence in the management of
his own affairs and must amount to
must be more than mere negligence in the management of his
own affairs and must amount to
possession of goods or of the documents of title to goods possession of goods or of the documents of title to goods,
34
of the Factors Act 1889 (the 1889 Act) provides of the Factors Act, 1889 reads as follows. 1) Where a mercantile
agent is, with the consent of the owner, in
that
possession of goods or of the documents of title to goods,
where
any sale, pledge, or other disposition of the goods, made by him
a mercantile agent is, when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile
agent, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as valid
with the consent of the owner,
as if he were expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to
in possession
make the same; provided that the person taking under the
of goods or of the documents disposition acts in good faith, and has not at the time of the
disposition notice that the person making the disposition has not
of authority to
title to make the same. The
goods,
any sale, pledge, or other disposition
of the goods,
made by him
when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile

agent,
shall,
subject to
35
the provisions of
this Act,
be as valid as if he
were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make
same;
provided that the person taking under the disposition acts
in good faith, and has not at the time of the disposition notice
that the
person making the disposition has not authority to
make
the same.
The
The term “mercantile agent” does not include a mere servant or the term “mercantile agent” does not include a mere servant or
caretaker, caretaker, or one who has possession of goods for carriage, safe
custody, or otherwise as an independent contracting party
or one who has possession of goods for carriage, safe custody,
or otherwise as an independent contracting party.
36
be given possession of the goods for the purpose of Sale or be in possession of the goods at the time of sale, pledge or other
‘other disposition in disposition. In
Mercantile agent is in possession of goods even if he obtains mercantile agent is considered to be in possession of the goods
possession even if he obtains possession
To validate a To validate a sale by a mercantile agent under this section he

must be in
sale by
possession of the goods or of the documents of title to the
a mercantile agent under goods
this section with the consent of the owner.
he
must
be
in possession
37
of the goods or of the documents of title to
the
goods
with the
consent of the owner.
38
Instances from: viesakan.docx
3 78% 3: viesakan.docx 78%
SECTION 27 OF THE SALES OF GOODS ACT 1930. 4. SALE BY The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
PERSON NOT BY THE OWNER- is that the submitter has opted to exempt the document as a
of the goods, the buyer does not have better title on The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
the goods than the seller source in Urkund's Archive.
had,
except
the
possessor of the goods
is by manner excluded from repudiating the seller’s authority to

sell.
It is
provided that
when
39
mercantile agent with the consent of the owner of the goods, or
may be in the
possession of goods or of
a document
of title to goods, and any sale made by him, while acting in the
regular course of business as a mercantile agent shall
be as valid
sale
as if he was
expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to make
the same,
provided that
the buyer
act was
in good faith and not at the time of the contract of sale notice
that the seller has no authority to
40
sell.
has exercised his right of lien or stoppage in transit ( The source document can not be shown. The most likely reason
41
Instances from: SOGA.pdf
28 55% 28: SOGA.pdf 55%
Where person without title selling the goods with consent or where i a i person i without i
authority of the owner (section 27). 2. Where an owner
title i to i the i goods i sells i them i with i the i authority i or i
consent i of i the i owner. ? Section i .27 i where i the i owner
29 66% 29: SOGA.pdf 66%
of of i the i other i co i –owners. ? Section i .29 i Where i is i sale i is i

by i person i in i possession i under i voidable i contract. ?
the Section. i 30 i (1) i Where i the i sale i is i by i one i who i has i
already i sold i the i goods i but i continues i in i possession i
joint owners (section 28). 5.
thereof. ? Section. i 30 i (2) i Sale i by i a i buyer i who i has i
Sale by a person in possession under a voidable contract ( obtained i possession i of i the i goods i before i property i in i
the i goods i has i passed i to i and i vested i in i him. 4
section 29). 6. Sale by
one who has already sold the goods but continues
in possession thereof [
section 30(1)]. 7.
Sale by buyer obtaining possession before the property in the

goods has vested in him [
42
46 75% 46: SOGA.pdf 75%
that the buyer received the bill of lading with the consent of the that i as i the i buyer i had i physical i custody i of i the i bill i of i
owner [ lading i with i the i consent i of i the i owner
59 100% 59: SOGA.pdf 100%
the goods must have been delivered to the buyer or the The i goods i must i have i been i delivered i to i the i buyer i or i
documents of title the i documents i of i title
43
Instances from: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/nemo-dat-quod-non-habet/
4 50% 4: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/nemo-dat-quod-non-
habet/ 50%
SALE BY CO-OWNER 17. SECTION 29- SALE BY PERSON UNDER A
VOIDABLE CONTRACT. 18. SECTION 30- DISPOSITION BY SELLER Sale by joint owner:(Sec.28) •
REMAINING IN POSSESSION. 19. DISPOSITION BY BUYER
REMAINING IN POSSESSION 20. Sale by a person in possession under a voidable Contract-
(section 29) • Sale by
the seller in Possession (Section 30) (1) • Sale by the buyer in

Possession –

habet/ 78%
Chapter III of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 comprising Sections 18
to 30 which deals with Chapter III of the sale of goods act 1930 containing sections 18
to 30 deals with

habet/ 52%
the first part of this section expresses the explanation of the
Latin Maxim Nemo Dat Habet Quod Non and the second part of The first part of the section embodies the explanation of the
this section Latin maxim and the second part of the section
44
Instances from: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=150
54 62% 54: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=150

62%
the contract has not been rescinded by it. Other party at the time
of the sale. the contract has not been rescinded at the time of the
sale,
55 76% 55: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=150

76%
of the goods provided
of the Contract Act, 1872, but
the contract has not been rescinded at the time of
the contract has not been rescinded at the time of the
the
45
Instances from: https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-laws/the-sale-of-goods-act-1930/transfer-of-title/
34 57% 34: https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-laws/the-sale-of-

goods-act-1930/transfer-of-title/ 57%
is
is in possession of the goods or a document to the title of the
in possession of the goods or of the documents goods, with the consent of the owner.
with the consent of the Such an agent can sell the goods
owner; 2. when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile

agent.
if the
The sale shall be valid provided the buyer acts in good faith and
sale is
has
made by him
when acting in the ordinary course of business
of a mercantile agent; 3.
if
the buyer acts
in good faith and has

in good faith and without notice of the
46
sale to B. C gets a good title to in good faith and is unaware of the earlier sale, then he will have
a good title to the goods even though the property in the goods
the goods. The delivery of the goods

buyer obtains possession of the goods, before the property in
them has passed to him, buyer who obtains possession of the goods before the property
in them is passed to him, with the permission of the seller. He
with the consent of the seller, he may sell, pledges otherwise may sell, pledge or dispose of the goods to another person. If
dispose of the goods the second buyer obtains delivery of the goods in good faith and
without notice of the lien or any other right of the original seller,
to a third person, and if such person obtains delivery
of
the goods
in good faith bid without notice of
any lien or other right of the original seller
47
Instances from: http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/consol_act_OK/soga128/
36 80% 36: http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/consol_act_OK/soga128/ 80%
mercantile agent. A mercantile agent is one who has, mercantile agent" means
in the a mercantile agent having,
customary course of his in the customary course of his business as such agent, authority
business as such agent, either to sell goods
authority either to sell goods, or to consign goods for the or to consign goods for the purpose of sale or to buy goods or to
purposes of sale, or to buy goods, or raise money on the security of goods.
to raise money on Effect of
the security of goods [
section 2(9) of
48
Instances from: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ilr/article/download/64074/34500
1 96% 1: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ilr/article/
download/64074/34500 96%
Nemo dat quod non habet’ (no one can give what he does not
have) have).
download/64074/34500 96%
Nemo dat quod non habet’ (no one can give what he does not
have)” have).

download/64074/34500 90%
only includes persons whose employment corresponds to that of
some known kind of commercial agent, only persons whose employment corresponds to that of some
known kind of commercial agent,

download/64074/34500 86%
of the 1889 Act
of the Act, the expression ‘
defines ‘
mercantile agent’ means: a mercantile agent having in the
mercantile agent’ as meaning customary course of his business as such agent authority either
49
a mercantile to sell goods, or to consign goods for the purpose of sale, or to

buy goods, or to raise money on the security of goods.
agent
having in the
customary course of his business as
Sue agent
authority either to sell goods or
to consign goods for the purpose of sale or to buy goods or to

raise money on
the security of goods.

download/64074/34500 97%
a mercantile
a mercantile agent having
agent 2.
in the customary course of his business as such agent
having the authority…
customary course of his business as such agent authority to sell to sell goods etc.’; 7 (
goods,
etc.
50
Instances from: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s02.pdf
16 77% 16: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s02.pdf 77%
sold by a person who is not the owner sold by a person who is not the owner of them and who does not
sell them under the authority
of that property
and who does not sell them under any authority
51
Instances from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54
42 88% 42: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54 88%
in the customary course of his business as such agent authority,” in the customary course of his business as such agent authority
either—
etc. A
(a)
52
Instances from: http://www.ddegjust.ac.in/studymaterial/bba/bba-201.pdf
50 97% 50: http://www.ddegjust.ac.in/studymaterial/bba/bba-201.pdf

97%
with the case of
with the case of
a sale by
a sale by a person who has obtained possession of goods under
a person who has obtained possession of goods under a voidable contract.
a contract
53 96% 53: http://www.ddegjust.ac.in/studymaterial/bba/bba-201.pdf

96%
a sale by a person who has obtained possession of goods under
a contract a sale by a person who has obtained possession of goods under
a voidable contract.
53
Instances from: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1695/Nemo-Dat-Quod-Non-Habet.html
5 47% 5: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1695/Nemo-Dat-
Quod-Non-Habet.html 47%
NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET: The Indian Contract Act 1872
comprises of 266 sections which was previously divided into Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet The Indian Contract act 1872
many different chapters and Section 1 to 75 deals with general contained 266 sections originally which was divided in to various
principles of the contract and from Section 76 to 123 chapters. 1 to 75 dealt with general principles of the contract,
section 76 to 123

are given in section 28, 29 and 30 of the Sale of Goods Act.
are mentioned in section 28, 29 and 30 of the sale of goods act.
ESTOPPEL: The 1) Estoppel The expression estoppels is derived from a French
word ‘Estoup’ which means “shut the mouth”.
term estoppel is originated from a French word ‘Estoup’ which
literally mean “shut the mouth”.

the goods by his act or any conduct or any omission permits
the goods by his act or omission or conduct allows the buyer to
the buyer to believe that the seller believe that the seller has a right to sell the goods, he (the true
owner) cannot deny such sale subsequently. For example when a
of the goods has the right to sell
person
the goods and the real owner
54
of the goods cannot refuse such sale. Let take an example when
a person

Representation
Representation may arise from words or declarations or it may
may arise from words, declarations or it may arise from an act or arise from an act or omission.
omission

farquharson Bros v. kings Co (1902) AC 325,336 4 Greenwood
v.Bennet (1973) 1 QB 195. 5 farquharson Bros v. kings Co (1902) AC 325,336 3) Greenwood
v.Bennet (1973) 1 QB 195. 4)
55
Instances from: https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Sale-of-Goods-By-P-S-Atiyah-9780273022060-/333036213726
61 62% 61: https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Sale-of-Goods-By-P-S-

Atiyah-9780273022060-/333036213726 62%
THE SALES OF GOODS, BY M.G. BRIDGE 3. THE SALE OF GOODS
BY P.S. ATIYAH, The-Sale-of-Goods-By-P-S-Atiyah-9780273022060 The Sale of
Goods By P.S. Atiyah. 9780273022060
56
Instances from: http://www.kkhsou.in/eslm//E-SLM/DEGREE/BCOM/3rd%20Sem%20Commerce%20%20PDF/BRF%20English/Unit%205%

20Indian%20Partnership%20Act.pdf
56 67% 56: http://www.kkhsou.in/eslm//E-SLM/DEGREE/BCOM/3rd%

20Sem%20Commerce%20%20PDF/BRF%20English/Unit%205%
after sale. It says 20Indian%20Partnership%20Act.pdf 67%
that after sale: - Under section 30 (1), it is laid down that where a
person has sold goods but he continues in posses-
where
Business Regulatory Framwork 95 THE SALE OF GOODS ACT,
a person has sold goods but continues in possession of them or
1930 Unit 5 sion
of documents of title to
of goods or of the documents of title to the goods,
them, he may sell them to a third person, and if such person
obtains delivery thereof he may sell them
in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, to a third person and if such person obtains delivery
he gets a good title to them, thereof
in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, the person
can get a good title to
them.
57
Instances from: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nemo+dat+rule
58 78% 58: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nemo+dat+rule

78%
the seller must continue
the seller possession of the goods or of the documents of title to
possession of the goods or of the documents of title to the goods,
goods
58
Instances from: https://quizlet.com/12713215/title-to-goods-flash-cards/
12 95% 12: https://quizlet.com/12713215/title-to-goods-flash-cards/ 95%
In the development of our In the development of our law, two principles have striven for
mastery. The first is for the protection of property: no-one can
law, two principle have striven for mastery. The first is give a better title than he himself possesses.
for
the protection of property: no one can give a better title than he

himself possesses
59
Instances from: https://pipfa.org.pk/PressReleaseAttachment/Solutions%20-%20Summer%20Exam%202018.pdf
48 100% 48: https://pipfa.org.pk/PressReleaseAttachment/Solutions%20-%

20Summer%20Exam%202018.pdf 100%
the
the
rule that a man cannot make a valid sale of goods which do not
belong to rule that a man cannot make a valid sale of goods which do not
belong to
49 100% 49: https://pipfa.org.pk/PressReleaseAttachment/Solutions%20-%

20Summer%20Exam%202018.pdf 100%
rule that a man cannot make a valid sale of goods which do not
belong to rule that a man cannot make a valid sale of goods which do not
belong to
60
Instances from: https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.%20Biol.%20Sci.,%204(5)7-14,%202014.pdf
51 88% 51: https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.

%20Biol.%20Sci.,%204(5)7-14,%202014.pdf 88%
the agreement
the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party is
is a whose consent is so caused.
contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was
so caused.
52 79% 52: https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.

%20Biol.%20Sci.,%204(5)7-14,%202014.pdf 79%
the agreement
the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party is
is a contract voidable at the option of the patty whose consent whose consent is so caused.
was
so caused.
61
Instances from: http://www.kenyalawresourcecenter.org/2011/07/exceptions-to-nemo-dat.html
7 82% 7: http://www.kenyalawresourcecenter.org/2011/07/exceptions-
to-nemo-dat.html 82%
A thief steals goods and sells them to someone who buys in
good faith a thief steals goods and sells those goods to someone else who
buys in good faith,
person hands goods to an agent to obtain offers and the agent
sells person hands goods to an agent to obtain quotations for those
goods and the agent sells
a swindler buys goods, induces the seller to let him have them
on credit and promptly resells or pledges them for whatever he a swindler buys goods and induces the seller to let him have
can get; possession of the goods on credit and he promptly resells or
pledges those goods for whatever he can get;
3.

62
goods, but retains possession of them and fraudulently resells goods but retains the possession of the goods and then
them to a third party. In all these cases the law has to choose fraudulently resells those goods to a third party.
between rigorously upholding the rights of the owner to
In all these scenarios, the law has to choose between upholding
the rights to private property of the owners to
63
Instances from: 49633853-d6ce-44e0-bd12-c6d4d5aa63b6
47 88% 47: 49633853-d6ce-44e0-bd12-c6d4d5aa63b6 88%
at the time of the contract of sale that the seller had no authority at the time of the contract of sale notice that the
to sell. “
seller has no authority to sell.”
This
This
64

Analysis of Exceptions to the Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Rule

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Analysis of Exceptions to the Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Rule

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

URKUND

Urkund Analysis Result

Sources included in the report:

BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf (D31560640)

Instances where selected sources appear:

THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

THIRD TRIMESTER FINAL DRAFT OF LAW OF CONTRACT -II TOPIC-

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the Project titled-“

Signature of the Teacher:

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. INTRODUCTION 2. NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET 3.

GENERAL RULE. 5. ESTOPPEL. 6. ESTOPPEL OF OWNER. 7. ESTOPPEL BY WORDS OR CONDUCT.

CONCLUSION 21. BIBLIOGRAPHY 22. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.

0: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 53%

of the British Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

basically means that “

gives what they do not have”

from someone who has no ownership right

on that property also denies the purchaser any ownership title.

and for some value and a

In the development of our

law, two principle have striven for mastery. The first is

0: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 95%

first of these principles is

0: contracts project trimester 3.docx 100%

consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better

title to the goods than the seller had,

by his conduct precluded from denying the

seller’s authority to sell.

THE SALES OF GOODS ACT 1930:

Sales of Goods Act 1930 subject to any other

law for the

particular time being where the goods or the property is

sold by a person who is not the owner

and who does not sell them under any authority

and with consent of owner

of the goods, the buyer does not have better title on

the goods than the seller

possessor of the goods

is by manner excluded from repudiating the seller’s authority to sell.

mercantile agent with the consent of the owner of the goods, or

expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to make

There are two parts in the Section 27 in which

are given in section 28, 29 and 30 of the Sale of Goods Act.

the goods by his act or any conduct or any omission permits

the buyer to believe that the seller

of the goods has the right to sell

the goods and the real owner

0: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 71%

0: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 100%

title against the buyer.

unless the owner of the

goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the

seller’s authority to sell”

refer to estoppel of the

0: contracts project trimester 3.docx 79%

title to the goods.

0: contracts project trimester 3.docx 100%

a disregard of his obligations towards the

Coventry Shepherd &

0: BC0160025- Contracts 2.pdf 52%

of goods is precluded by his conduct to deny the sellers authority to sell 3.