The legal principle "nemo dat quod non habet" (no one can give what he has not) establishes that a person cannot transfer ownership of a property that they do not have legal title to. However, there are exceptions to this rule. In Malaysia, the application of the exception allowing for the transfer of property by a good faith buyer has been a topic of debate. Through examining the application of the exception under the Sale of Goods Act 1957, it can be argued that it has advantages such as promoting trade and commerce, as well as protecting good faith buyers. However, there are also potential disadvantages, such as increase uncertainty and the possibility of abuse. In conclusion, the legal system must carefully balance the promotion of trade and commerce with the protection of all parties involved in property transactions.
Aigbe, I. A. (2023). Emerging trends in sale of goods in Nigeria: An examination of market overt principle and the exceptions. International journal of comparative law and legal philosophy (IJOCLLEP), 4(2).
Bishopsgate Motor Finance v Transport Brakes. (1949). 1 KB 322 (CA) 336-337
Gemmell, O. (2020). Is Good Faith Leaving a Bad Taste? The Role of Good Faith in the Transfer of Corporeal Property in Scots Law. Edinburgh Student L. Rev., 4, 9.
Goode, R. (2004). Commercial Law (3rd ed.). Penguin Books. P.89
Meusburger, L. U. (2020). The Proof Is in the Numbers: An Economic Analysis of the English Rule of Nemo Dat. Cambridge L. Rev., 5, 1.
Newtons of Wembley Ltd v Williams. (1965). 1 QB 560
Riley, O. (2017). Sale of Goods by a Non-Owner: The Competing Property Rights of a True Owner and a Good Faith Purchaser. QMLJ, 8, 99.
Sale of Goods Act 1957
Syarikat Batu Sinar Sdn Bhd & Ors v UMBC Finance Bhd & Ors. (1990) 3 MLJ 468
