[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-291752-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-291752-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","the-transfer-of-title-nemo-dat-quod-non-habet","The transfer of title - Nemo dat quod non habet","","The text explains the legal principle nemo dat quod non habet, stating that a seller can transfer only the ownership he has, or the right to sell the goods, at the time of sale. It contrasts when the statutory rule in Section 21(1) applies with the broader nemo dat principle, including cases involving encumbrances. It then outlines key exceptions via estoppel, covering sales by agent, estoppel by representation, estoppel by negligence, other estoppel forms, and the special rules for sales by a mercantile agent.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-transfer-of-title-nemo-dat-quod-non-habet/291752/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-transfer-of-title-nemo-dat-quod-non-habet/291752.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"River Wang","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-11","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",17,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does nemo dat quod non habet mean for a sale of goods?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It provides that no one gives what they do not have, so a seller can only transfer good title if they own the goods or have the authority to sell them. If not, the true owner’s rights usually override an innocent purchaser unless an exception applies.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does Section 21(1) relate to the nemo dat principle?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Section 21(1) applies where goods are sold by someone who is not the owner. The nemo dat principle is broader and can also cover situations where the owner sells but the goods cannot be sold free of a third party’s charge or encumbrance.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What is estoppel in the context of an unauthorized sale?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Estoppel applies when the owner’s conduct makes it appear that the seller has authority to sell. The owner is then precluded from denying the represented facts or that the sale was unauthorized.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},291752,1789646707,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":124,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1099514067438,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002539ee87300030?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1780474512215547542","12. The transfer of title  \nNemo dat quod non habet  \nThe Latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet (often abbreviated to nemo dat) translates as ‘noone gives who possesses not’ and broadly provides that a seller can only transfer to a buyer the ownership in the goods if he owns them or has the right to sell them at the time of sale. Thus, a seller who does not own the goods, and who is not authorized by the owner to sell them, cannot usually pass good title to an innocent buyer. The nemo dat rule protects the true owner of the goods at the expense of the innocent purchaser, who loses out, unless one of the exceptions to the rule applies.  \nSection 21(1) only applies where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, whereas the nemo dat principle applies also to cases where, although the sale is made by the owner, he is unable to sell the goods free from any encumbrance or charge that exists in favour of a third party.  \nSale by agent  \nSince s 21(1) talks about goods that are sold by a person who is not the owner and who does not sell them under the authority of the owner, a brief discussion is needed on the position of a sale by agent. No special problems arise where the agent sells the goods with the express authority of the owner, but it will be noted that the section goes on to refer to the ‘consent’ of the owner. As already noted, the opening words of the section indicate that it is subject to the provisions of the SGA 1979, s 62(2) of which preserves the common law rules pertaining to principal and agent.  \nThe concluding words in s 21(1),‘unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell’, set out this exception. Estoppel applies in cases where the owner of the goods acts in such a way that it appears that the seller has the right to sell the goods. As a consequence, the owner is then precluded (estopped) from denying the facts as he represented them to be, or that the sale was unauthorized.  \nShaw v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1987] 1 WLR 1332 (CA)  \nIt held that s 21(1) only applies to a party who has actually purchased goods and not to one who has merely agreed to do so. The reason why this was unsatisfactory is that s 21(1) appears to bea simple restatement of the common law principle of estoppel and, as such, ought to protect a party who, as a result of the representation made, has acted to his prejudice.  \nEstoppel by representation  \nAn estoppel by representation might arise where the owner of the goods has, by his words or conduct, represented to the buyer that the seller is the true owner of the goods, or has his authority to sell the goods.  \nIt is often difficult to know precisely what conduct by the original owner will amount to the necessary representation that the seller was authorized or entitled to sell the goods.  \nAs already observed, before the innocent purchaser can obtain title by estoppel, the original owner of the goods must have made either an intentional or a negligent representation that theseller was authorized or entitled to sell the goods.  \nIt has already been observed that where an owner merely gives a third party possession of the goods, this will not amount to a representation that the third party is himself the owner or has the right to sell the goods.  \nEstoppel by negligence  \nAn estoppel by negligence arises where the owner of goods, by reason of his negligence or negligent failure to act, allows the seller of the goods to appear to the buyer as the true owner or as having the true owner’s authority to sell the goods.  \nThus, a person who omits to correct a misrepresentation made by a third party where he has a duty to do so might in appropriate circumstances be held responsible for that representation.  \nIn any event, for this kind of estoppel to arise, it must first be shown that the owner of the goods had a duty to take care so as not to act negligently. Just as in the law of torts, there can be no question of neg","cbCaitlaaAN802eV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitlaaAN802eV","pdf",346007,"English","# The transfer of title\n## Nemo dat quod non habet\n## Sale by agent\n## Estoppel by representation\n## Estoppel by negligence\n## Other forms of estoppel\n## Sale by a mercantile agent\n## The seller must be a mercantile agent","[{\"question\":\"What does nemo dat quod non habet mean for a sale of goods?\",\"answer\":\"It provides that no one gives what they do not have, so a seller can only transfer good title if they own the goods or have the authority to sell them. If not, the true owner’s rights usually override an innocent purchaser unless an exception applies.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Section 21(1) relate to the nemo dat principle?\",\"answer\":\"Section 21(1) applies where goods are sold by someone who is not the owner. The nemo dat principle is broader and can also cover situations where the owner sells but the goods cannot be sold free of a third party’s charge or encumbrance.\"},{\"question\":\"What is estoppel in the context of an unauthorized sale?\",\"answer\":\"Estoppel applies when the owner’s conduct makes it appear that the seller has authority to sell. The owner is then precluded from denying the represented facts or that the sale was unauthorized.\"}]","The transfer of title - Nemo dat quod non habet | PDF",25]