Nemo dat Quod non habet

Regarding the issue of transfer of title, it is often linked to the legal principle of "Nemo dat Quod non habet", which means 'no one can give a better title than (from) what he has himself'. This principal is stated in Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act 1957. Nemo dat Quod non habet is sometimes refered to as the nemo dat rule.

This rule is aimed to protect the right of ownership. Under this rule, individual who purchases stolen goods will not obtained the ownership even though there is no indication that the goods purchased are stolen. Therefore, this showed that the interest of the real owner is protected.

Example of case law related to nemo dat rule is the case of Lim Chui Lai v. Zeno Ltd [1964].

However, there are six exceptions to nemo dat rule, which are:

1) The operation of estoppel (Section 27)
- by record
- by deed
- by conduct

2) Sale by merchantile agent (Section 27)
3) Sale by one of joint owners (Section 28)
4) Sale under a voidable title (Section 29)
5) Sale by a seller in possession after sale (Section 30(1))
6) Sale by a buyer in possession (Section 30(2))