[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-291753-105":59,"doc-detail-291753-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","nemo-dat-quod-non-habet-course-notes-commercial-law","Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet - Course Notes - Commercial Law","","Commercial Law course notes explaining the nemo dat quod non habet principle: no one can transfer better title than they possess. The material develops the rule through authority and consent of the owner, estoppel, and statutory references (including the Sale of Goods Act 1979). It contrasts negative and positive aspects of consent and outlines key sale scenarios such as sales by mercantile agents, voidable title, hire purchase, and seller/buyer in possession. It also examines related concepts like stoppage in transit, and the rule’s broader operation beyond section 21.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/nemo-dat-quod-non-habet-course-notes-commercial-law/291753/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/nemo-dat-quod-non-habet-course-notes-commercial-law/291753.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Miles","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",15,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What does the nemo dat quod non habet principle mean?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It means a person cannot transfer better title than they themselves have. As a result, a buyer generally acquires no better title than the seller possessed, unless an exception applies.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How does the consent of the owner affect the buyer’s title?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The notes explain that where the owner’s consent is involved, statutory provisions can allow a buyer (and sometimes a subbuyer) to obtain a good title that is not defeated by earlier liens or stoppage rights.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Why is nemo dat wider than section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Section 21 is limited to sales by a non-owner, while nemo dat can also cover situations where an owner sells goods but cannot pass good title free from existing encumbrances or charges affecting third parties.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},291753,1789646708,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},13056703019404,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","􀀀  \nNemo Dat Quod Non Habet  \nCourse  \nCreated  \nLast Edited  \n􀀀 Commercial Law  \n􀁦January 9 , 2024 2􀁩35 PM  \n􀁦May 14, 2024 10􀁩07 AM  \nType Topic  \n􀀀 Table of Contents  \n􀀀 Table of Contents  \n􀀀 Reading  \nThe Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet  \nAuthority/ Consent of the Owner  \nEstoppel  \nSpecial Powers of Sale  \nSale by Mercantile Agent  \nSale Under Voidable Title  \nHire Purchase Act 1964  \nSeller in Possession  \nBuyer in Possession  \nOther Jurisdictions  \nTowards a ‘Fair ʼ Nemo Dat Rule  \nTowards a General Rule on Unauthorised Dispossession of Goods?  \n􀀀 Reading  \nEssential  \nTwigg-Flesner and Canavan, Atiyah and Adams ʼ Sale of Goods,  \n279􀁧293  \nFox et al, Sealy and Hooley ʼs Commercial Law: Text, Cases and  \nMaterials, pp. 356􀁧378 and 395  \nMcKendrick, Goode and McKendrick on Commercial Law, pp. 493 􀁧 527  \nFurther  \nNemo Dat Quod Non Habet 1  \nMerrett, The Importance of delivery and possession in the passing of title, 􀁤2008􀁥 CLJ 376.  \nGoode, Ownership and Obligation in Commercial Transactions  \n􀁢1987􀁣 103 LQR 433  \nDrob nig, Transfer of Property, in Hartkamp et al (eds.) , Towards a  \nEuropean Civil Code 􀁢1994􀁣  \nLaw Commission, Sale of Goods Forming Part of a Bulk 􀁢Law Com No. 215, 1993􀁣  \nBattersby, A Reconsideration of ‘Property ʼ and ‘Title ʼ in the Sale of Goods Act 􀁤2001􀁥 JBL 1􀁧13  \nChorley, The Conflict of Law and Commerce 􀁢1932􀁣 LQR 51  \nUlph, The Sale of Goods 􀁃Amendment) Act 1995􀁅 Co-ownership and the Rogue Seller 􀁤1996􀁥 LCMLQ 93  \nJ Hornby ‘Mercantile Agents Car Registration Books ʼ 􀁢1962􀁣 25 MLR 719  \nC Turpin ‘Mistake of Identityʼ 􀁢1972􀁣 30 CLJ 19  \nJ Thornely ‘Sales by Persons with Voidable Titles and Buyers in  \nPossessionʼ 􀁤1965􀁥 CLJ 24  \nG Battersby ‘The Sale of Stolen Goods: a Dilemma for the Lawʼ 􀁢1991􀁣 54 MLR 752  \nC Elliot ‘No Justice for Innocent Purchasers of Dishonestly Obtained Goods ʼ 􀁤2004􀁥 JBL 381  \nA Foster ‘Sale by a Non-Owner: Striking a Fair Balance between the Rights of the True Owner and a Buyer in Good Faith 􀁤2004􀁥 9 Cov LJ 1  \nL Merrett ‘The Importance of Delivery and Possession in the Passing of Titleʼ 􀁢2008􀁣 67 CLJ 376  \nJ Thornley ‘Innocent Purchasers and Legislative Tanglesʼ 􀁤1988􀁥 47 CLJ 15  \nThe Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet  \nNemo Dat Quod Non Habet 2  \n‘No one may transfer what they do not ownʼ  \nWhistler v Forster 􀁢1863􀁣 14 CBNS 248—stated this  \nEssence of the rule: S with no ownership rights in the goods may pass a good title to a 3 rd party.  \nT steals goods, sells to B who buys in good faith and for value  \nP hands goods to A, A sells them without authority and disposes of the proceeds.  \nS retains possession and then resells the goods to a 3 rd party.  \nProblem: upholding the rights of the owner OR the purchaser who  \nbuys with good faith and for value?  \nIt is sufficient if the party seeking protection against the original owner (the 3 rd party purchaser of the goods) brings the case under one of the exceptions to the nemo dat rule  \nBishopsgate Motor Finance Corp v Transport Brakes  \n“In the development of our law, two principles have striven for mastery:  \nThe first is the protection of property: no one can give a better title than he himself possesses.  \nThe second is for the protection of commercial transactions: the person who takes in good faith and for value without notice should get better  \ntitle.  \nThe first principle has held sway for a long time, but it has been modified by the common law itself and by statute so to meet the needs of our times.ˮ 􀁨 Lord  \nDenning)  \nSGA 1979, s21􀁅1􀁆  \nNemo Dat Quod Non Habet 3  \n\"Subject to the Act, where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner…the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had...\"  \nTwo problematic phrases in s .21􀁊  \n􀁢1􀁣 “…where goods are sold…ˮ AND  \n􀁢2􀁣 “…consent of the owner…ˮ  \nThe first of these should not be understood as mere agreement to  \nsell—Shaw v Commissioner of Met. Police  \nNegative Part—a non-owner cannot pass title (just like with an  \nagreement to sell) ","cbCaiixNY4SKEDQs","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiixNY4SKEDQs","pdf",4396577,39,"English","# The Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet\n## Authority/Consent of the Owner\n## Estoppel\n## Special Powers of Sale\n## Sale by Mercantile Agent\n## Sale Under Voidable Title\n## Hire Purchase Act 1964\n## Seller in Possession\n## Buyer in Possession\n## Other Jurisdictions\n## Towards a ‘Fair Nemo Dat Rule’\n## Towards a General Rule on Unauthorised Dispossession of Goods?\n# Reading\n## Essential\n## Further\n# Core Doctrinal Development\n## Essence of the Rule and Core Problem\n## Statutory Text and Two Problematic Phrases\n## Authority/Consent and Resale Implications\n## Stoppage in Transit and Subbuyer Title\n## Nemo Dat—Wider Than s.21","[{\"question\":\"What does the nemo dat quod non habet principle mean?\",\"answer\":\"It means a person cannot transfer better title than they themselves have. As a result, a buyer generally acquires no better title than the seller possessed, unless an exception applies.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the consent of the owner affect the buyer’s title?\",\"answer\":\"The notes explain that where the owner’s consent is involved, statutory provisions can allow a buyer (and sometimes a subbuyer) to obtain a good title that is not defeated by earlier liens or stoppage rights.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is nemo dat wider than section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act?\",\"answer\":\"Section 21 is limited to sales by a non-owner, while nemo dat can also cover situations where an owner sells goods but cannot pass good title free from existing encumbrances or charges affecting third parties.\"}]","Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet - Course Notes - Commercial Law | PDF",98]