My topic is transfer of title of goods sir.

Section 27

Sir Where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner of the goods and who does not sell them
under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer gets no better title to the goods than
the seller. The maxim "nemo dat quod non habet" expresses this law, which states that no one can
provide what he does not have, i.e., a seller cannot impart a stronger title than his own. When the
seller is the owner of the items he sells or is acting on behalf of someone else to sell the goods, he
transfers a good title to the buyer.
And this is a general rule that is established.
Sir I would like to mention

$$$$$$$$$Greenwood v bennet case in line with the general rule established

In this case, mr bennet acted on behalf of the actual owner of a jaguar car who was currendon
property pvt ltd. Mr bennet was given the responsibility to sell the jaguar car so he thought he
could command a better price if he sells the car after doing the repairs so he entrusted mr
Searle to do the repairs but mr Searle used the car for his own purposes and caused damage to
the car by crashing it.mr Searle then sold the car to a man named harper for 75 dollars but
later harper who bought the car spent 226 dollars on the car repairing it before he was about
to sell the car to a credit card company.
The issues involved in this case are
Whether bennet was entitled to possession of the car
Whether harper was entitled to receive the improvement money
Sir the court declared that bennet was entitled to the possession of car but he was supposed to
pay the 226 dollars to harper.
Sir here it is noteworthy to mention the nemo dat norm appears to be harsh sir still various
exceptions have developed at common law and have been incorporated by statute but All of the
exclusions will only apply to someone who buys the products in good faith and without knowledge
of the original owner's rights.
Sir there are exceptions that have been installed in the sale of goods act 1930 and in the
Indian contracts act as well.

*******The first exception is the transfer of title by estoppel

Sir the PRINCIPAL OF ESTOPPEL says which precludes a person from asserting something
contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous
pertinent judicial determination.
Applying this principle into the present case it has been stated by the section 27 of the sale of
goods act that if the true owner of the goods either by his conduct or by his word or by any
act or omission of an act leads the buyer to believe that the seller is the owner of the goods or
has the authority to sell them, then the owner is said to be estopped from exercising his right
to possession.
Sir in the light of this, it is pertinent to mention
$$$$$$$$$Conventary Shepherd v. Great Eastern Railway
The facts of this case mention that the defendant carelessly issued two delivery orders
relating to the same consignment of goods, thus enabling the person to whom they were
issued to obtain an advance from the plaintiff. Sir it is to be mentioned that the owner owes a
duty of care towards the seller.
Sir duty of care is the responsibility of the owner to make sure that the act done by him meets
the requirement of certain standard of care. In our case the defendant has also committed
negligence tort as well.
The court observed this principle and held that the defendant has been estopped from and the
plaintiff had a valid title.

*******moving on to the next exception it is sale by mercantile agent. Sir, this exception is
like a branch to the principal of estoppel.A mercantile agent is working under the principal
that is the owner of the goods and he must sell his goods in his ordinary course of
employment. Meaning the buyer will receive a good title still
A perfect example for this would be
$$$$$$$$Folkes v King where mr folks entrusted a mercantile agent to sell his car for 575
pounds but the agent sold the car for as low as 140 pounds to which an innocent buyer mr
king purchased the car. Later folks sued king for recovery of his car.
Held that the agent was in possession for THE PURPOSE OF THE SALE and the king
received a good title to it.
******The next exception is the sale by one of the joint owners.
That is if multiple joint owners of goods takes sole possession of them with the approval of the
other co-owners, the property in the items is passed to anybody who buys them in good faith from
that joint owner without knowing that the seller has no authorization to sell.
********the next exception is the sale by a person in possession under a Voidable Contract
Sir According to sections 19 and 19-A of the Contract Act, if a party's permission was obtained
through coercion, fraud, deception, or undue influence the contract is voidable under the
discretion of the party. Applying this, to the section 29 of the sale of goods act which states
that a owner has made a contract of sale to a person and he has the possession of the goods. If
the person in possession of goods sells the goods to a different party, the party attains good
title if the party had purchased the goods in good faith
*********the next exception is Sale by the seller in possession
Under section 30(1), If a seller has sold the products and the buyer has acquired ownership of the
goods, the seller is unable to deal with them. That is the seller cannot sue the buyer for the
ownership of the good but in return a buyer can sue him for conversion if the seller is still in
possession of the goods and deals with them. Section 30 (1), on the other hand, states that if a seller
who has sold the goods is still in possession of the goods or the documents of title to them, the
delivery or transfer of the goods or the documents of title under any sale, pledge, or other
disposition thereof by the seller or by a mercantile agent on his behalf will convey a good title to the
buyer if the buyer has acted in good faith and is unaware of the previous sale.

*******The next one is Sale by a buyer in possession

Sir under the section 30(2), if the buyer has already obtained the documents of title and the
goods from the seller, if he sells it to third party and the third party buys it in good faith from
the buyer, neither the buyer nor the seller can sue the third party and on top of that, the third
party receives a good title to the goods.

******The next one is resale by an unpaid seller

Sir under section 54(3) it is stated that the unpaid seller can actually stop the goods intransit if
he hasn’t received the payment as established under the contract and if the unpaid seller sells
this goods to a third party, then the third party receives a valid title even without the receipt
of resale by original buyer.

****** the next one is sale by finder of goods

Sir The Indian Contract Act is a piece of legislation that governs According to Indian Contract
section 71, the finder of goods bears the same liability as the bailee. He is responsible for the things
while they are in his custody and for returning them to their rightful owner. However, under
SECTION 169 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, if the owner cannot be found with
reasonable diligence or refuses to pay the finder's lawful charges upon demand, the finder may sell
the goods: a) When the thing is in danger of perishing or losing the greater part of its value, or b)
When the finder's lawful charges in respect of the thing found amount to two-thirds of its value.
When the finder of things sells them under the aforementioned circumstances, the buyer receives a
good title to the commodities.

******* The next one Is sale by Pawnee

Sir according to section 176 of the contracts act, if the loan guaranteed by the goods is paid back
to the pawnee, he is required to restore the goods but if the debt is not paid back, He has the right
to keep such items until the obligation, interest, and other required expenditures incurred by him in
connection with the custody or preservation of the pledged commodities are paid to him.

In case, the pawnor fails to pay the obligation, the pawnee has the option of either suing him for the
debt or selling the items pledged after providing the pawnor adequate notice of the sale. And this
would actually obtain good title to the buyer buying it.

$$$$$$$$$CUNDY V LINDSAY

The claimant received an order for sale of handkerchiefs from a person named Blenkarn, who
signed in his name in a manner resembling “Blenkiron & Co.”- a reputed firm located at “123,
Wood Street”. The purchaser further mentioned his address to be at “37, Wood Street, Cheapside”,
to which the claimant sent the goods. Although no payment was made by Blenkarn, he sold the
goods to a third person- the defendants.

Later, the claimants alleged that, as they sold the goods to Blenkarn under the mistaken assumption
that they were selling it to Blenkiron & Co., there was no real consent to the contract of sale.
Consequently, there WAS NO VALID TRANSFER OF TITLE, WHICH REMAINED WITH
THE CLAIMANTS, AND ACCORDINGLY, THEY SUED THE DEFENDANTS FOR
CONVERSION OF GOODS.

Sir it can be implied that there was gross injustice and that the bonafide third party purchaser
could be prejudiced due to the dishonest dealings of one contracting party in the original nullified
contract. In other words, following Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little, a seller can nullify a
contract as void and retain title of goods sold if the sale happens under a mistaken identity of the
purchaser.

$$$$$$$$$$ WHITEHEADS V ANDERSON

a quantity of timber was consigned on board and the ship arrived at the destination but after
that the buyer went bankrupt. The buyer’s agent came to the board and told that he has come
to take possession. later, The captain said that he will deliver only when the freight is paid.
Before this could be done, the seller sent a notice to stop and asked to send the goods to be
delivered to the agent of the seller.
The court said that since the transit has not ended, the carrier was within his rights in
returning the goods to the seller. The captain agreed to deliver the goods on a condition and if
the condition is not fulfilled, the buyer does not acquire the constructive possession of goods.

$$$$$$$ PHILLIPS V BROOKS

A person purchased a ring from him with a cheque and signed his name as “Sir George Bullough”.
He also provided this person’s address. Phillips knew the person named Bullough and knew he
lived at the mentioned address. So he allowed him to take the ring before the cheque cleared. The
person turned out to be a fraudster and the cheque dishonored. The ring was pledged to Brooks Ltd.
by the fraudster and Brooks Ltd. paid for it with a bona fide intent. Later, a civil action was brought
by Phillips against Brooks Ltd to recover the ring or its value. The claim made by philips was
allowed. Then there should be a contract of sale instead of an agreement to the sale of future goods
or contingent goods.

purchased the ring there was no mistake as to identity due to the fact this contract was made face-to-
face. Whilst fraudulent statements were made, the identity of the fraudster could not be considered
‘mistaken’. Importantly, a fraudulent contract is voidable (not void) and permits property to pass
to bona fide third-party meaning Brooks Ltd was the legal owner of the ring.

$$$$$$$$ CITY FUR MANUFACTURING V FUREENBOND

Mr. H purchased a quantity of skins from a broker. Since the payment was pending, the
goods remained in the broker’s warehouse. Mr. H sold them to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff
gave him a bill of exchange to enable him to pay the broker and arrange delivery to the
plaintiffs. Instead of arranging the same to same for the plaintiff, Mr. H pledged the goods
with the defendants.

$$$$$$$$ MARTEN V WHALES

Marten and Theaker agreed that Marten will buy land from Theaker and in return Theaker
will buy his car. There was a condition attached to it that Marten‟s solicitors approved the
Theaker‟s title to land. The car’s possession was handed over to Theaker. Theaker further
sold the car to Whale. Whale bought that car in good faith and without notice of Marten‟s
rights. The sale was not carried out as Marten’s solicitors refused to approve Theaker‟s title
to land. Marten sued Whale for possession of the car.
The court held that Theaker, who sold the car, had agreed to buy the same and, therefore,
Whale acquired a good title to the same.