wow!!!!! oh no, am i speaking latin now!!!! lol don't freak out..... let me get you to the same page with me..... Cheers
Each time a conflict involving property arise, the first thing that has to be established is the ownership of the property in question and this is where those big heading words comes in, don't worry you'll get to know what they say soon, but for now be patient, atleast you know its something in relation to ownership.
Lets look at an interesting example:
A thief steals my bicycle, three days later he is arrested , hurray my bicyclee is back.....lalala lallalallaaaaahhhhhh.....ohhhhh wait a minute, unbelievable, oh no my bicycle is not there.......sob..sob...sob. unfortunately its too late he has sold it to an identified third party.
so here we are, can i get my bicycle back???????????
Yeah, here we goooo, back to those big words, and thanks to them or else i was never gonna get back what rightly belong to me. nemo dat quot non habet simply means nobody can give a better title than what he has himself. Happy now that we are speaking the same language, i hope so!!!!
So basically the thief was in possession of my bicycle, and that does not take the ownership from me, therefore my bicycle get back to me because he does not have the right to give something that does not belong to him. unfortunately for the buyer, his fate will depend on his innocence as to whether he knew how the property was obtained.
This rule is adopted in the old English SOGA 1957 section 27, a very popular case which is normally used in rulings of nemo dat rule is the case Jerome Vs Bentley & Co [1952]. The Jerome entrusted a stranger, Major Trentham, with a diamond ring to sell for ú550. 12 days later he sold the ring for ú175 to Bentley who bought in good faith thinking he was the owner. The court held that the Major effectively became a thief of the ring and that no property passed to the defendant.
TIP FOR THE DAY: SAVE THE EARTH, GO GREEN!!!!!
