Title to Property
Question:
Identify the principle Lord Denning was discussing in Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Limited v Transport brakes limited and clearly explain how the principle has been modified by common law and statute.
AUTHOR : KATALILO JOY
INTRODUCTION
This paper will identify the principle Lord Denning was discussing in Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Limited v Transport brakes limited and clearly explain how the principle has been modified by common law and statute.
The principle Lord Denning was discussing in the case stated above relates to the sale of goods and is aimed at protecting individual property. It is common to find persons selling goods to which they hold no title at all and have no consent or authority from the owners. This occurs when either the goods being sold are stolen or have been gotten from the owner by deception. The buyer of such goods is usually innocent and may not have notice of the defective ownership held by the seller. The resulting situation is determining who has the title to the goods between the two innocent parties i.e the original owner of the goods and the innocent buyer of the said goods.
This situation is properly resolved by the question of whether a person without title to the goods can pass title to anyone who buys the goods from him. This is thus the principle that the Lord Denning was discussing in Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Limited v Transport brakes limited. It is an established principle that “the transferee of goods cannot get better title than that of the transferor”. The principle is a common law rule called nemo dat quod non habet.
Nemo dat quod non habet is latin which means that if goods are sold by a person who does not have title to the goods then he would be unable to pass title to a subsequent purchaser since he did not have title to begin with. The rule is supported by Section 21 (1) of the Sale of goods Act 1979 states that “Subject to this act, where
Identify the principle Lord Denning was discussing in Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Limited v Transport brakes limited and clearly explain how the principle has been modified by common law and statute.
AUTHOR : KATALILO JOY
INTRODUCTION
This paper will identify the principle Lord Denning was discussing in Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Limited v Transport brakes limited and clearly explain how the principle has been modified by common law and statute.
The principle Lord Denning was discussing in the case stated above relates to the sale of goods and is aimed at protecting individual property. It is common to find persons selling goods to which they hold no title at all and have no consent or authority from the owners. This occurs when either the goods being sold are stolen or have been gotten from the owner by deception. The buyer of such goods is usually innocent and may not have notice of the defective ownership held by the seller. The resulting situation is determining who has the title to the goods between the two innocent parties i.e the original owner of the goods and the innocent buyer of the said goods.
This situation is properly resolved by the question of whether a person without title to the goods can pass title to anyone who buys the goods from him. This is thus the principle that the Lord Denning was discussing in Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Limited v Transport brakes limited. It is an established principle that “the transferee of goods cannot get better title than that of the transferor”. The principle is a common law rule called nemo dat quod non habet.
Nemo dat quod non habet is latin which means that if goods are sold by a person who does not have title to the goods then he would be unable to pass title to a subsequent purchaser since he did not have title to begin with. The rule is supported by Section 21 (1) of the Sale of goods Act 1979 states that “Subject to this act, where