The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is an advanced piece of legislation given the nature of the early 20th century. It has detailed provisions regarding different types of sales, possessions by a rightful owner along with what comprises as exceptions upon certain sale agreements where rightful ownership can be questioned.

Like any piece of legislation, it has to firm up its boots and embrace the 21st century with new dimensions arising in the digital market and contract legal aspects. Therefore, it becomes imperative to study how the principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet works under the Sale of Goods Act 1930 and how it should evolve given the circumstances in the modern era.

Interpretation of Nemo Dat in Sale of Goods Act 1930

The Sale of Goods Act 1930 [1]has had a revolutionary impact in the dealings of buyers and sellers in the contractual state of affairs. It has enabled certain rights and principles which help in protection of buyers and sellers in the scenarios of disputes relating to possession, delivery and unpaid sellers. It also includes problems for other solutions. The Act was made with a clear provision in mind. Since the Indian Contract Act,1872 was proving to be unsatisfactory for the meeting the community requirements at large, it was decided that a separate act is necessary for meeting new mercantile expansions.[2]

The principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet plays a big role in the formation of the underlying intention of Sale of Goods Act 1930. Upon translation, it can be seen that the general meaning of this maxim is "no one gives what they do not have".[3]

The rule of Nemo Dat is based on the idea that a free society can only exist if property rights are strictly upheld. Individuals in a decentralized economy will seek to maximise their wealth by increasing the market value of the real and personal property they own.[4]

Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act,1930 codifies the Nemo Dat concept which helps in protecting unwitting buyers. It is quoted as follows

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell: Provided that, where a mercantile agent is, with the consent of the owner, in possession of the goods or of a document of title to the goods, any sale made by him, when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent, shall be as valid as if he were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same; provided that the buyer acts in good faith and has not at the time of the contract of sale notice that the seller has not authority to sell."[5]

Cases like Greenwood v. Bennett[6], where the original owner of the Jaguar car was given due importance of titleship rather than the person who invested money in repairing the car is one of first examples of this principle in force in real life. This also applies to life insurance policies as seen in the case of Life Insurance Corporation vs United Bank of India Ltd.[7]

What Are The Exceptions To Sale Of Goods Act 1930?

In the traditional sense, the section defines certain exceptions to the Nemo Dat rule which is demarcated in many cases over the years:

1. Transfer of title by estoppel (Sec 27) [8]

   Estoppel refers to a situation in which a person or group of persons make the other believe that certain setup existed due to the conduct or words spoken by them. These people would later be disallowed from refuting that the situation did not exist in the first stage.[9]
   
   One of the most famous cases relating to title by estoppel is Eastern Distributors v. Goldring.[10] In this case, Mr. Murphy, the third party, owned a Bedford van. He was trying to get funding so he could purchase a Chrysler. In order to achieve this goal, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Coker, a car dealer, created a plan in which they would trick a hire-purchase business into financing the purchase of the vehicles.
   
   The dealer would then act as though they had purchased the van and were offering it for hire-purchase to the owner. The defendant acquired the vehicle because a hire-purchase firm purchased and leased it to Mr. Murphy. This latter group legitimately needed a van, so they bought one. When Murphy stopped making payments, the hire-purchase business tracked down the vehicle and filed a conversion lawsuit against the defendant.
   
   The Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Murphy did not legally transfer ownership of the vehicle to the defendant when he made the sale to them; rather, the title was already in the name of the hire-purchase firm, the plaintiff. Mr. Murphy surrendered up van title under the hire-purchase agreement. He was just a bailee under the hire-purchase agreement, not a vendor.
   
   In other words, if the real owner conveys through his actions or word leading another to believe that the seller is a legitimate owner or has the legitimacy to sell these goods, he cannot repudiate the seller's authority afterwards. Estoppel arises either from an act or omission (but it should be a legal obligation) or Negligence (but it should be in regard to the person).
   
   An example for estoppel by act or omission is as follows:
   B offered A to buy a car that A portrayed as his, but it belongs to C. C said nothing despite knowing everything. When B sells the car to A, C has no right to take it back, and A will acquire a valid title even if it doesn't belong to B. In estoppel by negligence, A person's negligence in the handling of his own affairs is not enough to produce an estoppels; the negligence has to expanse to a disregard of his obligations towards the person who is putting up the defence in order for it to work under this section.
   
   Conventary Shepherd & Co v. Great Eastern Rly.Co[11] and Shaw and Another v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner are examples of estopped by negligence.[12] In the first case, The defendants were estopped from denying that the commodities in the order were held for the assignor. Someone who circulates such documents bears a duty to others who may receive them. The second case held that the claimant clearly represented to the dealer that he should sell the car, and thus would have been barred from claiming return of the car.
    

2. Sale By Mercantile Agent (Sec 27)[13]

   The Sale of Goods Act 1930 defines a mercantile agent as one who has the authorization to sell or consign things for the purpose of sale, buy goods, or raise money on the security of goods in the ordinary course of business.[14] The agent has the authority to do away with the goods, provided he has the authority from the original seller to do so. The problem arises in the case in which he does not have any such power to do so.
   
   For the correct application of this provision, there are some conditions which must be fulfilled before it can be applied in a scenario:
   • Seller must fulfil the conditions of being a mercantile agent as mentioned duly in Sec.2(9) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930
   • He should have the appropriate consent of the owner while retaining the capacity of being a mercantile agent at the time of possession of goods or title of documents from the owner to him.
   • Any product sales made by a mercantile representative should be done so in the normal course of business.
   • The purchaser must have acquired the items in good faith, without knowledge that the Mercantile agent lacked authorisation to do so.
   In Folkes v. King[15], The claimant handed his vehicle to a broker who guaranteed a minimum sale price of 575 pounds. However, the commercial representative squandered the money by selling goods to the defendant for 140 pounds. When the seller filed suit, the court found in favour of the buyer (the defendant).
   
   In the case of Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. vs A.K. Menon and Ors.[16], If goods are left with the permission to sell, it doesn't matter if they are left conditionally or not. So, the broker/agent must be in control of a permission to sell. In these situations, even if the conditions aren't met or the authority is overstepped, the provision to Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act would come into play, and a good title would be given to the person who bought the item for value.
    

3. Sale by Joint Owner (Sec 28)[17]

   This section follows an interesting usage of the principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet. In a case where one of the joint owners has the prior permission of other owners to have the sole possession of the goods in question, then the person who shall buy the aforementioned goods in good faith from him/her obtains the title of the goods. In a situation where this provision had not existed, the buyer would have been regarded as one of the co-owners rather than the single titular owner.
   
   If X and Y decides to give an almirah jointly owned by X, Y & Z to D, then D shall become the owner of the goods. It is because of the excision of good faith that a liberty to D has been given for this.
   
   In B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar[18] It was decided that each co-owner owns the property on behalf of the whole group. Because of this, what one co-owner has, is treated as what the other co-owners have; as long as the other co-owners know about it.
    

4. Sale By a Person in possession under a voidable contract (Sec 29)[19]

   There are certain circumstances which are enlisted in Sec.19[20] of the Indian Contract Act 1872 through which the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent has been obtained through coercion, fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence.
   
   Sec 29 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 accounts for the circumstances mentioned in Sec.19 of Indian Contract Act 1872 and provides that if a person obtains the possession of some goods under a voidable contract underlying section 19 or 19-A of the Contract Act and sells them before the contract is nullified, the buyer acquires good title to them.[21]
   
   However, this certain section does not corroborate to void contracts or in the instance where the vendor is completely titleless. Also, the contract should not have been rescinded by the other party in this situation.
   
   In the case of Neev Trading Co vs Patparganj[22], The assessee-respondent were not a part of the fraud. There were clear conclusions that they bought DEPB on the open market with the honest belief that it was real. They had paid the full price, so they could use the benefit. Even though the DEPB was later found to be made up and fake based on the BCER, the assessee respondent could not be denied the benefits they were legally entitled to. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the stand on this topic through the cases of Sneha Sales Corporation[23] also.
    

5. Sale by the Seller in Possession (Sec 30) (1)[24]

   This section comprehends the complexity in the condition wherein the bought goods or transferred titles of documents are still in possession of the seller (however the ownership is with buyer) and the seller further sells it to pass the title to another; who buys it in good faith with no idea of the preceding sale. In this state of affairs, the authorization passes on and the new buyer has the supreme title of ownership of such deeds or goods. An illustration of the same is mentioned below:
   
   A sells a toy car to B but keeps it since B had gone to an outstation trip. During that time, A found one of his close friends C and made the sale of toy car to C. Now C being unaware of the transaction between A and B and gets the title of the toy car directly from B to himself.
    

6. Sale by the Buyer in Possession (Sec 30) (2)[25]

   Any sale, pledge, or other disposition of the goods by the purchaser, with the seller's approval, would convey good title and without notice as to any lien or other claim of the original seller in respect thereto, as provided in this section.
    
7. Resale by an unpaid seller (Sec 54) (3)[26]
   This section provides a compensatory remedy to an unpaid seller who has not yet received any payment for the sale of the goods. He is given the consent by law to withhold the transit of such goods through the right to lien or resell them, provided that he gives a notice to the buyer. The new buyer therefore acquires a fresh title to such goods or title of documents.
   
   The notice here plays utmost importance in the favour of such seller since he may lose his rights of claim in consonance with losses from the reselling of goods or lose the benefits accrued from such sale. In the case of Balaji Paper Agency vs Mysore Paper and Board Co.[27], it was held that since the plaintiffs did not issue any notice, they were not entitled to damages as claimed in the suit; in view of the specific provisions contained of the Sale of Goods Act.
    

8. Sale by Finder of Goods (Sec 169, Indian Contract Act)[28]

   If the owner cannot be located after reasonable efforts have been made, or if he refuses to pay the legitimate fees of the finder upon demand, the finder may sell the items. Before the ownership may be passed, certain points need to be kept in mind in the midst of selling.
   • When the value of the item is at risk of being lost entirely or
   • When the finder's legal fees will consume more than two-thirds of the item's value.
    
9. Sale by Pawnee- Sec 176, Indian Contract Act)[29]
   If the debt is not paid by the pawnor when it is due, the pawnee has the option of suing the pawnor for the debt or selling the goods that were pledged after giving the pawnor sufficient notice of the sale. This provision applies if the pawnor makes a failure in the payment of the debt.

Is Market Overt Principle A Valid Exception Today?

Market overt is an English law principle that derives its origination from the medieval times envisaging on the idea of rightful ownership of title of stolen goods.[30] Due to its closeted community nature of buying, the market overt principle lays emphasize on moving traders who engaged in trading with local buyers, didn't move much outside of city for buying all of their goods and had transactions upon good faith.

These markets were marked with following age-old traditions and toll charges upon buying and selling where applicable; it was held that the ownership of stolen goods got transferred as soon as these toll charges were paid.[31]

However, there were also certain exceptions under the market overt principle too. One of this included the passing of title of the property or goods to the crown.[32] The principle doesn't hold much of its own in today's times and is even seen as anachronic since countries like New Zealand have already abolished it. The United Kingdom kept the principle in motion following the Sale of Goods Act 1974(U.K) despite the Law Reform Committee's recommendation of its closure.[33]

After an amendment in 1994 to the sale of goods act[34], it was decided to do away with market overt in Wales but countries like Hongkong and British Columbia still do abide by it. Outside of London, a market overt place would be seen as an open, public but legally constituted market.[35] One reason for protecting the real buyer without notice in a market overt could be that in the past, the government encouraged the growth of fairs and markets overt that had a lot of different goods.

This could be why the common law said that all sales made in public places like fairs and markets should be good not only between the people buying and selling, but also with anyone else who has a right to the goods. If stolen goods ended up in a market overt, the owner could go to shops or stalls that sold things like his own, and since the goods had to be out in the open to be sold, he would be able to see them and get them back.

Thus, it put an onus on the buyer to put the efforts to recover his goods back from the market and in the event that his efforts fail to reach a desirable result, the buyer took good title. It held a practicable approach to fulfil the desire of an ever-increasing commercial open market.

In modern London, it's not particularly useful to limit a theory to the City of London, which has few retail stores. Trade has transitioned from markets to retail establishments nationwide. New marketplaces have been created that aren't grant- or statute-based. Due to increased mobility, the assumption that the genuine owner can find his items at the local market is absurd.[36]

The principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet has been embodied in the market overt rule through the legislation of Hongkong which follows the principle duly through the enactment of section 23 of the Hong Kong Sale of Goods Ordinance.[37] A famous case on the principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet in Hong Kong is R v. Tai Shing Jewellery Co.[38] In this case, a jewellery company bought some jewels which were part of a robbery by paying the full market demanded price.

The seller was brought it in for the charge of robbery and the appellants contended that the silver coins stolen be returned to them as they possess the title. It was held that the person who purchases items from a stall or in the usual manner is the only person who is protected by the market overt provision. When a shop owner purchases items from customers in his or her own store, the shop owner is not afforded any protection by the law. Thus, the act is meant for serving the consumers in the form of consumer protection and not in the interests of business buyers.[39]

Rameshwar v. Tarasingh and Ors.[40] held that the principle of market overt has not been given due recognition in the legislature of India which is why we can't give pronounced judgements based on it.

Is The Seller In Possession Exception Due For A Check Up?

The policy of allowing the seller from whom you have engaged in a trade to sell those goods which should have been rightly in your possession but now in the hands of the other is a bit abysmal.[41] It simply accounts for the fact that commerce is given a strict priority over the rule of Nemo Dat since the policy of promotion of trade holds a more significant value at the seller's discretion.

The humble origin of this section can be traced to the judgment in the case Johnson v. Credit Lyonnais[42] which led to a huge hue and cry in commercial sectors since the second sale of some dock warrants to an innocent buyer was deemed to be ineffective.[43]

Denning L.J famously quoted the following words in relation to transfer of titles in the case of Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corp:
"In the development of our law, two principles have striven for mastery. The first is for the protection of property: no one can give a better title than he himself possesses. The second is the protection of commercial transactions: the person who takes the transaction in good faith and for value without notice should get a good title.[44]"

One of the main essentials of this exception relates to the fact that the seller in question must continue to have due possession of goods after selling them. He may not exercise possession in any other capacity other than a seller; a bailee would also not constitute to be a valid capacity to hold for possession.[45]

A New Zealand case on the same reaffirms the position that possession depends on the capacity of the person who is selling rather than the mere act of selling. In Mitchell v. Jones[46] , it was held that when the original seller regained possession of an already sold horse in the capacity of a bailee, he is not authorized to resell the horse and thus the second buyer's claim to the horse failed. The seller did not have possession in the relevant sense i.e., in the capacity of a seller.

However, such decisions have been provided a due check-up by privy councils in cases like Pacific Motor Auctions (Pty) Ltd v. Motor Credits (Hire Finance) Ltd[47] wherein the logic of seller remaining in possession as a seller and not in any altered capacity was disparaged. Further decisions by court of appeals in cases like Worcester Works Finance Ltd v. Cooden Engg Co ltd[48] and City Fur Manufacturing Co ltd v. Fureenbond (Brokers) London Ltd[49] have affirmed to going away with this exception by concluding that, 'innocent buyer should not suffer at any costs whatsoever provided the element of good faith was present'.

In another recent case of Jsw Steel Ltd vs Delta Iron and Steel Co.Pvt.Ltd.[50], there was a question on the title of goods which was not paid by a party but some of the goods seized by the court receiver had been sold to the applicant. Since the goods had already been sold to the applicant, the petitioner did not have any rights on the said goods. The court took notice of the same under Section 30 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930[51].

In essence, the principal of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet is not followed here. It can be seen that even though the seller may have possession but not ownership, the circumstances of innocent buying vitiate the principal of NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.

Is there a need to look at Estoppel principle from the view of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet?

Estoppel affirms the transfer the ownership based on omission, act or negligence of owner so as to constitute an affirmation to such transfer of goods. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet ensures that a defective title cannot be passed upon another if the person doesn't hold a legitimate transferrable title.[52]

In the case of S. Kanthimathy & S. Lakshmi v. The Woodlands Estates Ltd. Ors[53], the company petitions filed in this case relates to account of unauthorised transfer of shares. The second respondent was the son of demised holder of shares who had manipulated the handling of shares in such a way that TRTCL shares were transmitted exclusively to his brothers that were contrary to the provisions of the will of the father.

The daughter who was the fifth respondent in the case was aware of the disputes among the children of the diseased prior to the purchase of the shares due to communication through multiple letters between them. Since she knew about the defective title in the case of shares and decided to go ahead with the decision, she would not be called an innocent buyer which is why the court held that section 27(1) does not apply here. Her actions were deemed to have estopped the ongoing sale through her act.

The principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet applies here since the fifth respondent was not deemed to be a bonafide purchaser of the shares and she couldn't get a better title than the seller by the virtue of the section.

In the case of Mercantile Credit Co. Ltd. v. Hamblin[54], a person wanting to borrow money on the account of depositing her car as security was frauded by a motor car dealer who was apparently her friend. The dealer then went on to transfer ownership of car through incomplete hire purchase agreements which showed the dealer as the rightful owner of the car. He then proceeded to go for a double fraud by selling to the plaintiffs implying the car as his own property which was kept to him as security only. He did this by sending duly filled hire purchase papers and fled with the money he received.

The court concluded through the aforementioned facts that since the defendant had not authorized the dealer in any way to represent her to the company as a sanctioned authority to sell the car, there was no representation. Thus, the exception laid down through the principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet pertains its effects here.

The estoppel principle affirms the position of the Nemo Dat principle in its working which can be seen in multiple cases around the world and in India itself. It takes into account the act, omission or negligence of the owner who transfers the right of ownership and estopped from claiming it later; if the situation arises.

Critical Analysis And Suggestions
Goods are an important aspect that are used every day in an individual's life. Since transactions on these goods happen on a daily basis, it becomes imperative to form a legislation that governs the buying and selling of such goods. Not only should the concepts of buying and selling be present in a legislation but a clear emphasis on rightful ownership and passing of titular rights should be advocated by the markets. It was in this hope that the Sale of Goods Act 1930 was created in conjunction to the principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet.

The Latin maxim exuded the idea of not allowing wrongful transfer of titleship in case the person obtains goods by unlawful means. In the analysis of the act with the underlying principle, it can be found that certain exceptions relating to sale of goods under the maxim do not follow the principle as an innocent buyer/seller may expect the market to do. But most of the times, the exceptions do follow the same.

The market overt exception and estoppel exception bring their fair share of meaning to the maxim and thoroughly allow the same to be followed in their workings respectively. All the other exceptions like Joint owner and Sale by Mercantile agent also follow the same coherence as found in the other two. However, the exception of seller in possession gives due respect to the commercial position in market rather than the innocence of either the buyer or the seller and does not produce results consistent with the maxim.

It can also be observed that since market overt principle has either been written off in many legislations or still in force with minimal changes reflecting the outward look of 21st century. One such case is Hong Kong which still holds on to the exception dearly. A major relook is needed in Hong Kong to reform the overt exception in relating to new intangible goods too.

It is also suggested that the whole of Sale of Goods Act is predominantly biased to tangible market-based goods and it should also include specific provisions relating to new intangible software available freely over the Internet Market. Goods like NFT pictures and other data driven goods that are present in a market but don't come under the structure of cryptocurrency or share market should also be included. 8th Law commission Report[55] tried to add shares and other goods under the scope of the act. But a new report is needed to analyse the addition of more goods mentioned in this analysis.

Additionally, more rights of buyers and sellers should be introduced in the act keeping in mind the diverse and dynamic nature of 21st century. In accordance to Nemo Dat, it should be provided that all the exceptions should be re-written with more situations accorded to the principle keeping in mind more focus on goods currently in trend in the market. Lastly, the act should also include e-commerce markets like Amazon and Flipkart since without an e-commerce section, the cases pile up vaguely under IT acts rather than the act of selling electronically.

Conclusion
In respect of the findings in this paper and the suggestions determined in the critical analysis section, it is of vital importance that changes be present in the Sale of Goods Act 1930 and the principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet is injected more thoroughly into the act. Lastly, a new thought structure has to be formulated to bring the legislation up to date and remove overburdening principles which hamper efficient decision making.

End-Notes:

1. The Sale of Goods Act,1930, 46, No.3, Acts of Parliament,1930, (India)
2. Suryansh Singh, Tracing the History of Sale of Goods Act 1930, Vol.3, Nyaayshastra Law Review,1,1-14, (2022)
3. ICLR UK, https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/glossary/nemo-dat-quod-not-habet/, (08th September 2022)
4. Meusburger, Lorenzo U., The Proof Is in the Numbers: An Economic Analysis of the English Rule of Nemo Dat, Vol.5, Cambridge Law Review, (2020)
5. The Sale of Goods Act,1930, 27, No.3, Acts of Parliament,1930, (India)
6. Greenwood v. Bennett, 208 Ala. 680, 95 So.159 (Ala. 1923)
7. Life Insurance Corporation vs United Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1970 Cal 513
8. Sale of Goods Act, 1930, 27, No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India).
9. Legal Information Institute Cornell, Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/estoppel, (12TH September 2022)
10. Eastern Distributors v. Goldring, (1967) 2 QB 600
11. Conventary Shepherd & Co v. Great Eastern Rly.Co (1883) 11 QBD 776
12. Shaw and Another v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1987] 1 WLR 1332
13. Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  27, No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India).
14. Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  2(9), No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India).
15. Folkes v King [1923] 1 KB 282
16. Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. vs A.K. Menon and Ors., 1994 80 CompCas 384 Bom
17. Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  28, No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India)
18. B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 165
19. Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  29, No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India)
20. Indian Contract Act,1872, 19, No.9, Acts of Parliament,1872 (India)
21. Supra Note 29
22. Neev Trading Co v. Patparganj, Customs Appeal No. 53589 of 2018, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
23. Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Sneha Sales Corporation, 2000 (121) ELT 577 (S.C.)
24. Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  30(1), No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India)
25. Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  30(2), No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India)
26. Sale of Goods Act, 1930,  54(3), No.3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India)
27. Balaji Paper Agency v. Mysore Paper and Board Co., ILR 1991 KAR 2563
28. Indian Contract Act,1872, 169, No.9, Acts of Parliament,1872 (India)
29. Indian Contract Act,1872, 176, No.9, Acts of Parliament,1872 (India)
30. Bryan A. Garner & Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary,1122, (4th edition,1968)
31. Davenport, Brian, and Anthony Ross. Market Overt, vol. 2, International Journal Of Cultural Property, 25, 25-46, (1993)
32. Willion v. Berkley, (1561) 1 Plowden 223.
33. Atiyah, The Sale Of Goods,306 (7th edition, 1985)
34. Sale and Supply of Goods Act, 1994, Acts of Parliament,1994 (United Kingdoms)
35. Lee v. Bayes (1856) 18 CB 599
36. Dora SS Neo, Application of English Law Act 1993: Sale of Goods and Nemo Dat, SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 150 ,150-163, (1994).
37. Sale of Goods Ordinance, 23, Cap 26, Hong Kong LegCo, 1896, (Hong Kong)
38. R v. Tai Shing Jewellery Co [1983] 2 HKC 441
39. Ji Lian Yap, Appraising the Market Overt Exception, Vol no. 3, Journal Of International Commercial Law And Technology,254, 254-258, (2008)
40. Rameshwar v. Tarasingh and Ors., AIR 1958 Raj 269
41. Louise Merrett, The Importance of Delivery and Possession in The Passing of Title, Vol no. 67, The Cambridge Law Journal,376, 376395. (2008)
42. Johnson v. Credit Lyonnais, (1877) L.R 3 C.P.D 32
43. Supra Note 51
44. Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corp Ltd v Transport Brakes Ltd [1949] 1 KB 322
45. Staffs Motor Guarantee Ltd v. British Wagon Co. Ltd, (1934) 2 KB 305
46. Mitchell v. Jones, (1905) 24 N.Z.L.R. 932
47. Pacific Motor Auctions (Pty) Ltd v. Motor Credits (Hire Finance) Ltd 1965 AC 867: (1965) 2 WLR 881 (PC)
48. Worcester Works Finance Ltd v. Cooden Engg Co ltd (1972) 1 QB 210
49. City Fur Manufacturing Co ltd v. Fureenbond (Brokers) London Ltd, (1937) 1 All ER 199
50. Jsw Steel Ltd vs Delta Iron and Steel Co. Pvt.Ltd, Commercial Notice of Motion (L) No. 2044 Of 2019 In Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 948 Of 2019, Bombay High Court.
51. Supra Note 34
52. Oxford Reference, https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198802525.001.0001/acref-9780198802525-e-2573, (22nd September 2022)
53. S. Kanthimathy & S. Lakshmi v. The Woodlands Estates Ltd. Ors, 2008 144 CompCas 830 CLB
54. Mercantile Credit Co. Ltd. v. Hamblin [1964] 3 W.L.R. 798
55. Law Commission, Sale of Goods Act 1930 (08, 1958) 7

Also Read:

• Nemo Dat Quod Non-Habet
• 
  

  Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Harjas Singh Gulati
  

  Authentication No: NV233148801362-27-1122