This Maksim nemo dat quod non habet state no one can give possession at something that he did not own. Apart from that too, it also meant if product bought from one who is not owner that is real or he never got truth from owner to sell, so buyer will not get title that is legal. This purpose maxim was to protect true owner product. Most of case that applicable with this maxim was case: Lim Chui Lai v Zeno Ltd (1946) 30 MLJ 314. In this case agreement was made between Zeno Ltd. with Ahmad which obtains contract from Majlis Perbandaraan Petaling Jaya (MPPJ) for culvert channel construction. Through contract, promises made by second parties and had agreed supply materials to construction culvert. However, agreement between Ahmad and MPPJ was revoked. Ahmad has already sell the said building material that supplied by Zeno Ltd. to Lim Chui Lai that as appellant in this case. However, Zeno Ltd, submit a claim in court on Lim Chui Lai so that these substances returned or paid at the cost of that should. On claim, court ruled that Lim Chui Lai do not have any rights on material. However, Lim Chui Lai makes appeal to Court that is higher and Federal Court decided that Ahmad only is ‘bailee’ and open owner to the product in his time sell to Lim Chui Lai. Hence, federal court decided that Ahmad has no title on product or power to sell, so he does not could be shifting anything title to appellant.
However, there is some exceptions when happen this maksim nemo dat quod non habet such as, Estoppel, Unauthorized sale by a mercantile agent, Sale by one of joint owners, Sale by person in possession of good under a voidable contract, Sale by a seller in possession of the goods after a sale and also Sales by a buyer who is in possession of goods. 1.Estoppel First Exceptions to this maksim nemo dat quod non habet cited as estoppel is obstacle to owners to deny power of sellers to sell product under the title if he through the act had
showed that he does not prevent sale. Section 27(1) there is explain matter related to Estoppel was " unless the goods owner had elapsed the behavior, stopped from deny power of sellers to buy". Case Sample that applicable with Estoppel was case of Syarikat Batu
Sinar Sdn Bhd & Ors. v. UMBC Finance Bhd & Ors 3 MLJ 468 when a company rental had purchased a tractor from one seller. However tractor that actually still unresolved hire purchase payment him with UMBC Finance. However result UMBC Finance staff's negligence , claim of ownership on tractor that not registered in Road Transport Department (RTD). Supreme Leasing had purchased tractor that without realizing payment hire purchase still unresolved and still tied by under period hire purchase with UMBC Finance. Finally court rules that failure that continued as long as few months by UMBC Finance to enter claim of ownership on tractor that has been deemed as act which caused existence of estoppel that block them from deny Supreme Leasing title. 2. Sale by person in possession of goods under a voidable contract Another exemption to maxim nemo dat quod habet was related to sale by person in possession of goods under a voidable contract under allocate s.29 states that if goods seller have obtained principal on goods under a voidable contract under s.19 and s.20. Contract act 1950 but contract the were no cancel at time sales, buyer get rights legitimately on goods provided he buy good faith and without knowing that seller no upper title product them. Case sample that applicable with Sale by person in possession of goods under a voidable contract was Car case & Universal Finance Co.Ltd. v Caldwell  1 QB 525. Caldwell was owner a Jaguar car sold him to A. As payment, A has given Caldwell a different car and a cheque. Caldwell later found cheque that unsalable and directly makes police report and request the police and also Automobile recoups car him. After several times transferred the car purchased by plaintiff (Car & Universal Finance...