nemo dat quod non habet

The rule is that a person who is not the owner of goods cannot pass a better title to a buyer than he himself has. If a thief sells stolen goods, the buyer gets no title, even if he paid full price in good faith.

The Sale of Goods Act states the rule and its exceptions: sale by a mercantile agent in possession with the owner's consent, by a joint owner in sole possession, by a person in possession under a voidable contract not yet rescinded, by a seller or buyer in possession after sale, and by an unpaid seller exercising his right of resale. Section 41 of the TP Act (ostensible owner) and the holder in due course rule are further exceptions.

Example

Since the scooter was stolen, the purchaser got no title under the nemo dat rule and had to return it to the owner.

In Indian law

• Sections 27 to 30, Sale of Goods Act, 1930

See also

sale of goods · ostensible owner · holder in due course · title

Read more in the study notes

• Transfer of title and performance of the contract of sale (Contract II)
• Ownership: the idea and its analysis (Legal Concepts)
• Ostensible owner, feeding the grant by estoppel and transfer by co-owner (Property Law)
• State territorial sovereignty: acquisition, restrictions and loss (Public International Law)