Nemo dat quod non habet

A seller who is not the owner of goods cannot pass a better title to the buyer than the seller has. A thief cannot give a good title, even to an honest buyer.

1. The seller is not the owner of the goods.
2. The seller has no authority or consent of the owner to sell.
3. The buyer therefore gets no better title than the seller had.

• Eastern Distributors Ltd. v. Goldring (1957), Court of Appeal, England: shows the exception where the owner's own conduct leads the buyer to believe the seller can sell.

Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Section 27 states the rule and its main exception. Sections 28 to 30 set out further exceptions.

• The owner, by conduct, is stopped from denying the seller's authority to sell (Section 27).
• Sale by one of several joint owners who has the others' consent (Section 28).
• Sale by a person in possession under a voidable contract that has not yet been avoided (Section 29).
• Sale by a seller or buyer who stays in possession after the sale (Section 30).

The Indian Act sets out the rule and its exceptions in Sections 27 to 30 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

Asked as "no one can give a better title than he has" with its exceptions. List the exceptions by section.

You cannot give away an empty pocket: no title in, no title out.

A buyer gets only the title the seller had, unless a statutory exception applies.