Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet CASES
In English law, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet (“no one gives what they do not have”) is a fundamental principle meaning a person cannot transfer better title to goods than they possess.
Definition and Principles
The principle ensures that only lawful owners or those legally authorised can pass valid ownership to another party, protecting true owners against wrongful transfers.
Exceptions
- Estoppel: Owners prevented from denying seller’s authority.
- Mercantile Agent: Agents with authority to sell goods on owners’ behalf.
- Sale under Voidable Title: Buyers purchasing in good faith without knowledge of issues.
- Market Overt (historical): Open market purchases conferring valid title (abolished since 1995).
Practical Importance
Understanding Nemo Dat helps parties safeguard ownership rights, ensuring due diligence during property transactions to avoid disputes or loss of title.
Home » Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
Lewis sold his car to a rogue impersonating a famous actor, accepting a fraudulent cheque. The rogue sold the car to Averay, an innocent purchaser. The court held the initial contract was voidable for fraud, not void for mistake, so Averay acquired good title. Facts The claimant, Mr Lewis, a postgraduate chemistry student, advertised his Austin Cooper S for sale. A man, who was in fact a rogue, arranged to see the car and offered the asking price of £450. When it came to payment, the rogue produced a chequebook. Mr Lewis was hesitant to accept a cheque. To allay
A rogue, Blenkarn, impersonated a reputable firm to fraudulently obtain handkerchiefs from Lindsay & Co. He then sold them to an innocent third party, Cundy. The House of Lords held that no contract ever existed between Lindsay and the rogue, meaning title never passed. Facts The case concerned a quantity of linen handkerchiefs ordered from the respondents, Lindsay & Co., who were manufacturers in Belfast. The order came from a fraudulent individual named Alfred Blenkarn, who was operating from a room he had rented at 37 Wood Street, Cheapside. Blenkarn intentionally signed his correspondence in a manner that made his
A car was sold to a rogue who paid with a fraudulent cheque. The original owner, upon discovering the fraud, immediately informed the police. This action was held to be a valid rescission of the contract, preventing title from passing to a subsequent innocent purchaser. Facts On 12th January 1960, Mr Caldwell, the defendant, sold his Jaguar motor car to a man named Norris. The sale was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation, as Norris paid with a cheque that was later dishonoured. Upon discovering the fraud the next morning, Mr Caldwell immediately reported the matter to the police and the Automobile
