Practicing Success

Target Exam

CUET

Subject

Legal Studies

Chapter

Legal Maxims

Question:

Bennett was the real owner of a Jaguar car. Bennett gave his car to a man named Searle for repairing work. Searle used the car for his purpose. While he was using the car, it met with an accident. Searle then sold the car to a garage owner named Harper for 1000 dollars. Harper did not have the knowledge that Searle was not the real owner of the car and spent 5000 dollars to carry out repair works. He then further sold the car to a finance company. What will be the decision of the court in this if Bennett files a case to recover his car?

Options:

Bennett was entitled to recover the car.

The Finance company will be the owner of the car as it has purchased the vehicle on good faith.

Bennett was entitled to recover car only till the time the car was with Searle.

The ownership of the car will depend on the discretion of the court

Correct Answer:

Bennett was entitled to recover the car.

Explanation:

Nemo debt non quad habit: The literal meaning of the phrase “nemo dat quod non habet” means no one can give what he does not have. This is a legal rule which states that purchasing a property from someone who doesn’t have a title denies the purchaser of the property of an ownership title also. In simple words, if someone gets something because it was transferred to him- as a bequest, sale, gift, etc., he will only have that title which the previous owner had and nothing more. The transferee derives his title from the transferor. This is also known as the derivative principle. Suppose, X transfers his property to Y. Then X turns around and transfers the property to Z. Following the rule of nemo dat quod non habet, Y will get the right from X. Now Y have the rights and X have none. So X cannot transfer Z the property.
Through the judicial pronouncement of Greenwood v Bennett. The rule can be explained. In this case, Bennett was the real owner of a Jaguar car. Bennett gave his car to a man named Searle for repairing work. Searle used the car for his purpose. While he was using the car, it met with an accident. Searle then sold the car to a garage owner named Harper for 75 £. Harper did not have the knowledge that Searle was not the real owner of the car and spent 226 £ to carry out repair works. He then further sold the car to a finance company. The Court held that since Searle wasn’t the real owner, he couldn’t transfer the right to Harper, who in turn couldn’t pass the rights to the finance company. Bennett was entitled to recover the car.