Skip to main content

Legal Maxim of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

 Legal Maxim of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet

By Shweta Nair


Meaning:

No one can transfer a better title than he himself possess or it is also known as no one can give or transfer who possess not. 

Where a person sells goods through another wherein the seller is not the owner of goods or where a person without the authority or consent of the owner sells the goods to another. The buyer does not get a good title to those goods as the seller’s title is a defective title. 

Certain Exceptions: 

Even though the seller may not have right to sell those goods, still the buyer may have the right. 

  1. Title by Estopple: 

Where the owner of the goods by his conduct induces the buyer to believe that the seller has an authority to sell, the owner is estopped or prevented from denying the seller’s authority to sell and the buyer gets a good title with respect to those goods. 


  1. Sale by Mercantile Agent:

Following conditions must be fulfilled: 

  1. The Mercantile Agent must have obtained the possession of the goods with the consent of the owner of the goods. 

  2. The Mercantile Agent must be in possession of the goods as a Mercantile Agent. 

  3. He must have sold those goods in his ordinary course of business as a Mercantile Agent. 

  4. The buyer must have purchased those goods in good way and without having any notice or knowledge of the fact whether the mercantile agent has an authority to sell it or not. 

  5. If all the above conditions are fulfilled, the buyer gets the good title with respect to those goods. 


  1. Sale by one of the several joint owners:

Where one of the several joint owners is in possession of the goods with the consent of the other joint owners and if he sells off those goods then the property in those goods will be transferred to the person who purchases those goods in good faith and who has no notice at the time of sale whether the seller has an authority to sell. 


  1. Sale by a person who is in possession under a voidable contract:

  1. The person must have obtained the possession of the goods under a voidable contract under Section 19 or Section 19A of the Indian Contract Act.

  2. The contract must not have been rescinded at the time of the sale. 

  3. In such a case, the buyer acquires a good title with respect to those goods provided that 

  1. He acted in good faith

  2. He had no notice about the seller’s defective title. 


  1. Sale by a seller who is in possession after sale:

The seller must be in possession of the goods even after selling of those goods and if such a seller delivers or transfers those goods under any sale to any person who receives those goods in good faith and without having knowledge about the previous sale, then the second buyer will acquire a good title with respect to those goods notwithstanding the fact that the property in the goods had been passed to the first buyer. 


  1. Sale by a buyer who is in possession of the goods:

  1. The first buyer must be in possession of the goods under a contract. 

  2. He must have obtained the possession of the goods with the consent of the seller who is the owner. 

  3. The first buyer must have transferred those goods under sale to the second buyer. 

  4. The second buyer will get a good title with respect to those goods provided that 

  1. He acted in good faith

  2. He must have no notice of any lien or any other right of the original seller. 


  1. Sale by an unpaid seller: 

Where an unpaid seller is in possession of the goods after exercising his right of lien, a right of stoppage in transit and if he resales those goods, the buyer gets a good title with respect to those goods even against the original buyer. 


  1. Sale in market overt:

So, where a buyer purchases goods in a market overt, the buyer gets a good title to those goods provided that

  1. He acted in good faith 

  2. He had no notice of any defect or lack of title on the part of the seller. 


  1. Finder of goods:

When the finder of goods sells off those goods found, the buyer gets a good title to those goods provided that the finder of goods sells the goods under the following circumstances: 

  1. Even if the owner of the goods is found, the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges to the finder of goods. 

  2. When the goods are perishable.

  3. When the owner of the goods cannot be found even after reasonable attempt. 

  4. When the value of the goods is such that the lawful charges incurred by the finder of goods amounts to 2/3rd if the value of the goods. 

  5. Right of the pledgee to sell the goods

The pledgee has got a right to sell of the goods pledged with him by the pledger if the pledger fails to performs the promise or repay the debt when due. In such a case, he passes a good title to the buyer. 











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree