Exceptions to Nemo Dat Rule

Sale under a voidable title S.23 states 'When the seller of goods has a voidable title to them, but his title has not been avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of the seller's defect of title.' Egs of void and voidable contracts. Ingram v Little (1961) Lewis v Averay (1972) In general the defrauded party can only rescind the contract by communicating with the other party to the contract, and notifying him of the rescission.
==================================================

Introduction to the nemo dat rule S.21(1) sets out the nemo dat rule (nemo dat quod non habet or just nemo dat - No one can give a better tittle than he has). S.21(1) states 'Subject to this Act, where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell.' NB The exceptions that follow does not form an 'exclusive list'. You will, from time to time, come across other exceptions to the nemo dat rule.