Explain the following exception to the nemo dat dad quod non habet rule.

i) Estoppel

ii) Sale by mercantile agent

The fundamental rule that no one can give that he has not got, Section 27
of SGA set the general rule as follows:

...where goods are sold by a person who is not he owner thereof,and who
does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of theowner,the
buyer acquires no better title of goos than the seller had..

The first exceptions are widely known as Estoppel. The owner of goods by
his conduct makes it appear to a buyerthat the person who sell thegoods
has his authority to do so and the buyer acts in reliance on it.The owner
will be estopped from denying the sellers authority. The buyer who takes
in good faith and for value will acquire a good title by estoppel. In the New
Zealand case, N.Z Securities & Finance Ltd v. Wrightcars Ltd.The owner in
the case held to be precluded from denying the sellers authority to sell to
a third party. In that case, A agreed to sell a car to B and B was given
possession of the car upon the tender of a cheque as payment. It was
agreed that property in the car was not to pass until the price had been
received. Then B sold the car to C and took it back on a lease. However,
before the sale to C was finalised, C had contacted As office and in
response tp Cs query was informed by As employee that B had paid for
the car. The cheque given to A by B was dishonoured whereupon A
repossessed the car. On discovery of the event occured, C sue a for
conversion relying on the New Zealand equivalent of sectin 27. C was
successful in claiming that A was precluded by his conduct from denying
Bs authority to sell so that title had passed to C. It has no application in
respect of strangers to the conduct.

The next exception will be Sale by Mercantile Agent (section 27). In the
law of agency, an agent may pass a good title in selling goods belonging
to his principal provided he is acting within the scope of his actual
authority.Likwise if he is acting within his authority apparent or usual
authority. However, the fact that the agent is entrusted with goods or the
document of title does not of itself enable him to make a disposition
binding on his principal. An exception to his rule is disposition made by a
mercantile agent which is defined in section 2 of the SGA as an agent
having in the customary course of business as such agent authority either
to sell goods, or to consign goods for the purpose of sale, or to buy goods,
or raise money on the security of goods.It is clear that the person who
sells his own goods is not a mercantile agent.

The requirement must be satisfied for the proviso to operate. Firstly, at the
time dispositionm the mercantible agent must be in possession of the
goods or the document of title of the goods. Secondly, the possession
must be in consent of the owner. Thirdly, the disposition must be made
when acting in the ordinary course of business of mercantile
agent.Fourth, the buyer must acted in a good faith.

Furthermore, document of title is defined in section 2 as including a bill of

lading, dock warrant, warehouse keepers certificate,wharfingers
certificate,railway receipt,warrant or order for delivery of goods and any
other document used in the ordinary course of business.

In the case of Joblin v. Watkins & Roseveare (Motors) Ltd, Croom Johnson
expressed the view that phrase any other document should be construed
ejusdem generis with particular documents enumerated. The document
title would mean an instrument by which the person putting it forward was
entitled to dispose of the goods and its objects must be disposition of
goods. His lordship concluded that a motor vehicle registration book was
not a document of title. Although it showed the owner of motor vehicle, its
primary purpose was to show who was liable to pay road fund license
tax.It is a doubtful if Malyasian court would accept the view. However, if
blank transfer of ownership form is signed by the owner and together with
the registration book, is in the possession of the mercantile agent then
ther is no doubt that they would constitute document of title.