Transfer of title by non-owners is defined as the buyer does not obtain a better title than the seller had when the goods are sold by a person who is not the owner and sells the goods without authority or consent of the owner in s. 27 of SGA 1957. In short, it can be said as no one can sell the goods and transfer the ownership of the goods to other unless he is the owner. This rule is further enshrined in the maxim ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’. It is a Latin phrase meaning that no one can transfer a better title to the buyer of the goods than he himself has or in other word, no one can give what he does not have.
For instance, Anson purchase goods from Billy. The good is acquired by a thief. Cindy, who is also the true owner of the goods. Anson…show more content… Zeno Ltd  30 MLJ 314. Initially, Zeno Ltd, the respondent company entered into an agreement with a contractor named Ahmad, who had also secured contracts from the Petaling Jaya Authority for the construction of culverts. Under the contract, Zeno Ltd was the supplier of construction materials to Ahmad. They bought the materials and delivered to the construction site. Afterward, Ahmad’s contracts with Petaling Jaya Authority were cancelled due to the conflicts between them. Zeno Ltd informed the authority that the materials delivered to the construction site were belonged to them and they would sell it. However, they found out the materials had been sold by Ahmad to Lim Chui Lai, the…show more content… This is mainly to avoid making any mistake by following the standard procedures of conducting business. This can be well illustrated in the case of Oppenheimer v. Attenborough & Son (1908) 1 KB 221, where a diamond broker fraudulently pledged some diamonds he had possessed and he did not have the authority to do so. For the past few years, the broker was a diamond merchant and had pledged diamonds for a number of business transactions. The issue was whether the broker had to act in the ordinary course of business of a diamond broker when dealing with the defendants who were unaware of the broker’s act. The court held that it was sufficient for the broker to act in an ordinary course of business of a diamond