Sale by a person in possession under a voidable contract[6]: This exception is governed not only by Section 29 of the Sale of Goods Act, but also by Sections 19 (7) and 19A [8] of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. Both articles stipulate that if the consent of the parties was obtained by fraud, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation, the contract is voidable at the option of the injured party. Section 29 of the Sale of Goods Act, on the other hand, provides that if a person comes into possession under a contract of certain goods that are voidable under sections 19 and 19A of the Contracts Act and the goods were sold by the person before the contract was avoided by the injured party, The buyer of the goods has a good title. The rule would not apply if the contract is invalid. The law would only come into force if the contract was objectionable. An exception to the Nemo-Dat Rule exists where orders have been placed by commercial agents who are or continue to be in possession under section 26A of the Goods Act 1958. Finally, I should point out that the exceptions to the Nemo dat rule explained in this article are exceptions to the common law. The Sale of Goods Act (1893) is the relevant legislation from which all these exceptions were drawn. However, it should be noted that not all jurisdictions will accept the above exceptions to be applicable to the Nemo dat quod non habet rule. The principle of forfeiture means that a person relies on the conduct of another person in a way that leads him or her to believe in and act on such trust.
Without the influence, the person who was influenced would have acted differently. Under this rule, if the original owner of the goods, by his act or omission, misleads the buyer into believing that the seller is the owner of the goods, and the buyer purchases the goods from the buyer in reliance on them and thinking that the seller has the power to sell, the owner cannot oppose the seller`s power to sell. Section 27 of SOGA also legally enforces it by stipulating that no one other than the owner has the power to transfer ownership of the goods unless the owner himself does not deny by his conduct that the seller is unable to sell the goods. This is one of the most acceptable exceptions to the nemo dat quod non habet rule. The court will always conclude that a buyer has a good property if the above is proven. At common law, a vendor can transfer ownership if he sells with the power of attorney or consent of the owner. The rule that, if the owner is used against the owner by his conduct or act or omission, leads the buyer to believe that the seller is the true owner of the goods and has an absolute right to sell the goods and leads the buyer to purchase them so that the owner cannot subsequently deny the existence of such rights with the seller. Due to the forfeiture rule against the owner, the owner cannot prove that the seller did not have the right to sell. Section 27 of SOGA deals with the transfer of possession rule. It states that the sale of goods by a person who is not the owner without the power of attorney and consent of the owner would leave the buyer with the same rights as the seller. This means that, since the seller was not the legitimate selling authority, the sale in question would not give the buyer better ownership of the goods than the seller owns. There are two exceptions to this provision, which are discussed in detail below.
Once a seller sells the goods to a customer/buyer, he transfers ownership of those goods to the buyer. After that, he can no longer sell the same goods to another person because he transfers his own authority to the buyer. However, Article 30(1) of SOGA is an exception to that rule. This only applies if the requirements of this section are met. It provides that if a seller who has already sold the goods to a buyer continues to be in possession of the goods or title to the goods and transfers or sells ownership or sells them either himself or through a commercial agent, the consignee of the goods or delivery in connection with a sale, of a pledge or other disposition, which they receive in good faith and without knowledge of the prior sale of the goods, would have the same rights as if the seller were the owner entitled to the goods and was able to make such a sale. The exception does not presuppose that the seller is de facto in possession of the goods. De jure ownership is important here. The overthrow of the Afghan government, the occupation of Kabul and the imposition of the Taliban regime have created a mystery both in Afghanistan and in the world order. This taints the question of whether Afghanistan would ever come into being and literally gain independence from sales by commercial agents: if the true owner of the goods has employed a commercial agent and the goods are sold by the agent, then the buyer will get a good title, because usually an agent can pass on a better title. The problem occurred when the agent was not authorized to dispose of the goods. The following conditions must be met for this provision to be invoked: If the goods are sold on an open market, the Nemo dat quod non habet rule does not apply. Thus, the buyer acquires good ownership of the goods, provided that he purchases them in good faith and without defects or defects of ownership on the part of the seller.
In general, only the owner of the goods can transfer title to the goods. No one can give a better title than what he has himself. This is expressed in the Latin word “Nemo dat quod non habet”. Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other law now in force, if goods are sold by a person who is not the owner and who does not sell them under the authority (or) with the consent of the owner, the buyer does not acquire better ownership of the goods than the seller. Section 27 § 1 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 provides that if goods are sold by a person who is not the beneficial owner of the goods and sells them without the proper approval and consent of the beneficial owner, the buyer does not acquire better ownership of the goods than the seller. In addition, Article 27 also provides for an exception to the rule. Section 27 can be seen as a general rule protecting the interests of the beneficial owner. If there is a defect in the seller`s title, the buyer also inherits the same defect from the seller. However, this section does not mean that the buyer`s title is always bad. The basic principle of this rule is that the buyer cannot acquire a better title than the seller.