[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-291711-105":59,"doc-detail-291711-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","the-use-of-estoppel-in-the-sale-of-goods","The Use of Estoppel in the Sale of Goods","","The paper examines how the doctrine of estoppel applies to transactions involving the sale of goods, particularly as an exception to the nemo dat principle. It analyzes section 27(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1957 and treats estoppel as understood through estoppel by words, conduct, and negligence, while focusing on the operative requirements such as representation of fact, clarity, action, and voluntariness. It further explores the practical limits of estoppel where mere delivery or negligent omission is at issue, using English and Malaysian case law to illustrate application.",{"@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/the-use-of-estoppel-in-the-sale-of-goods/291711/",{"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/the-use-of-estoppel-in-the-sale-of-goods/291711.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Anda","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-08","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},"How does estoppel operate under section 27(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1957?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It operates as an exception to the nemo dat principle when the owner’s conduct precludes denial of the seller’s authority to sell.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What requirements must be satisfied before a plea of estoppel can be allowed?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The representation must be of fact, unambiguous, acted upon, and voluntary.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Is mere delivery of possession sufficient to raise estoppel by conduct?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"No. Mere delivery of possession (even with documents of title) is not sufficient; there must be something more that positively misleads the buyer beyond allowing non-owners to hold possession.","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},291711,1789646534,{"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":44,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962075006959,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e0002397efbe92a78e?_k=1776741047341049297","| THE UsE OF ESTOPPEL IN THE SALE OF   |\n| --- |\n| GooDS   |\n\nAn attempt is made in this paper to look at the use of the doctrine ofestoppel in the area of the sale of goods.First,estoppel is used insection 27(1)of the Sale of Goods Act 1957 as an exception to thegeneral principle of nemo dat quod non habet.Secondly,an effectsimilar to estoppel is also seen at work in section 13(1)of the Sale ofGoods Act 1957.The discussion on the operation of these two aspectsof the doctrine of estoppel will be attempted in the light of English andMalaysian case law.  \nI.Section 27(1)of the Sale of Goods Act  \nThe first part of section 27(1)gives effect to nemo dar whereas thesecond part of the same has it that:  \n…unless the owner of the goods is by conduct precluded fromdenying the seller's authority to sell.  \nEstoppel in the above context has been understood to refer to (a)estoppel by words,(b)estoppel by conduct,and (c)estoppel bynegligence although only the word 'conduct'is used in the said sub-section.There are certain requirements which need to be satisfied beforethe plea of estoppel may be allowed-viz,that the representation mustbe one of fact,that it must be unambiguous,that it must be acted uponand that it must be voluntary.  \n# 1.Estoppel by Words\n\nAt common law,estoppel by representation may be divided into estoppelby words and estoppel by conduct.It may happen where the owner hasby his words or conduct represented to the buyer that the seller is thetrue owner,or has the owner's authority to sell.Under this sub-heading,we are conceming ourselves with estoppel by words.  \nA case may suffice to illustrate how this aspect of estoppel works.In Henderson and Co.v Williams,²G&Co.were induced by fraudto sell goods to one F.G&Co.instructed the defendants,thewarehousemen,to transfer the goods in their books to the order of F.F then sold the goods to the plaintiffs.Upon inquires by the plaintiffs,the defendants twice issued a statement to the plaintiffs.The firststatement assured the plaintiffs that they held the goods to the orderof F and the second to the effect that they held the goods to the orderof the plaintiffs.G&Co.then instructed the defendants not to deliverthe goods to the plaintiffs but to themselves because they had not beenpaid by F.It was held that both G&Co.and the defendants wereestopped from denying the plaintiffs'right to the goods.G&Co.wereestopped because they had represented to the defendants that F was theowner by instructing the defendants to transfer the goods into F'sname in their books.On the other hand,the defendants were alsoestopped because they had represented to the plaintiffs that they heldthe goods to their order.³  \n# 2.Estoppel by Conduct\n\nIn respect of estoppel by conduct,one thing at any rate for sure is thatmere delivery of possession of the goods to another is not sufficientto raise an estoppel.In the case of a motor vehicle,delivery to anotherof possession of a car together with its registration book does not estopthe true owner from setting up his title.Likewise,the return of railway  \nreceipts by the pledgee to the pledgor in order to enable the pledgorto obtain clearance of the goods from the railway company did notconstitute an estoppel against the pledgee where the pledgor hadfraudulently pledged them with another bank in retum for an advancefrom them.⁵Estoppel could not be raised here because the possessionof the railway receipts “no more conveyed a representation that themerchants(X)were entitled to dispose of the property than the actualpossession of the goods themselves would have done”.Thus,theremust be something more than mere delivery of possession of the goodsor documents of title.Such an estoppel can only be raised providedthat there exists some act which positively misleads the buyer beyondmerely allowing a non-owner to have possession of the goods  \nWhere the owner of the goods represents the seller to be the owneror enables the seller to represent himself to be the owner,and knowsth","cbCail1HMUuOeeHP","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCail1HMUuOeeHP","pdf",138995,"English","# Introduction\n# Section 27(1) of the Sale of Goods Act\n## Estoppel by Words\n## Estoppel by Conduct\n## Estoppel by Negligence","[{\"question\":\"How does estoppel operate under section 27(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1957?\",\"answer\":\"It operates as an exception to the nemo dat principle when the owner’s conduct precludes denial of the seller’s authority to sell.\"},{\"question\":\"What requirements must be satisfied before a plea of estoppel can be allowed?\",\"answer\":\"The representation must be of fact, unambiguous, acted upon, and voluntary.\"},{\"question\":\"Is mere delivery of possession sufficient to raise estoppel by conduct?\",\"answer\":\"No. Mere delivery of possession (even with documents of title) is not sufficient; there must be something more that positively misleads the buyer beyond allowing non-owners to hold possession.\"}]","The Use of Estoppel in the Sale of Goods | PDF",23]