Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have",

is a legal
rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from
someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. It is
equivalent to the civil (continental) . The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know
that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona
fide purchaser);

Okay the first exception is estoppel.  estoppel is a doctrine in contract law which enforces a
promise whether executed as a contract or not. The doctrine seeks to protect the rights of a
promisee or aggrieved party against the promisor. estoppel applies when the promisor has made
a promise to the promisee. The promisee must have relied on the promise and suffered a loss due
to non-performance of the contract. The doctrine prevents the promisor or enterprise from going
back on their word or promise.For example, a vendor makes an oral promise to the customer to
replace the goods if they do not fit the customer size requirements. The customer purchases the
clothes and takes them home. However, the customer proposes to return the clothes to the vendor
relying on the vendor oral promise. Here, the vendor is estopped from refusing the clothes
returned.

Second is sale by merchantile agent. A mercantile agent is a person who is appointed by those in
business to act on their behalf or to represent them in dealing with other persons. The person on
whose behalf he acts as an agent is known as the ‘Principal’. He has the authority to buy and sell
goods on behalf of his principal or to consign them for the purpose of sale; With the
development of transport and communication facilities and with the increase in large-scale
production international trade has become possible. In this situation, businessman is faced with
many problems, especially the problem of delegating responsibility and authority to a person
who can execute the work on his behalf.

Third is sale by one of joint owners. if more than one person has ownership rights in anything,
and that thing is in the possession of co-owned with the prior approval of other co-owners, and
co-owned sell that thing without consulting other co-owners, the buyer will not be deprived of
complete ownership of that thing. For instance, Shreya, Vardhan and Anshika jointly purchased a
BMW car, with the permission of Shreya and Vardhan, the car is in the possession of Anshika,
who sold it at half the market price without asking Shreya and Vardhan. But the buyer Hina
purchased the car in good faith, so she will get a good title over the goods.

Fourth is sale under a voidable title.  this exception enables a buyer to acquire good title over
the goods, provided they were purchased in good faith and without notice of the seller's defect in
title. This section confirms the common law rule that if the seller of goods has a voidable title to
them, and it has not been avoided at the time of sale, then the buyer acquires a good title
provided that he buys in good faith and without notice of the seller’s defect of title. Voidable
titles usually take the form of where goods have been obtained under a contract induced by
misrepresentation. 
The fifth exception is the sale by seller continuing in possession. if a seller resells to a second buyer the
goods sold by him previously to the first buyer, the second buyer will obtain good title to the goods if he has received
the goods in good faith and without notice of the previous sale.

Lastly is sale by a buyer in possession after sale. if a buyer, having bought or agreed to buy goods, obtains
possession of the goods or the documents of title with the consent of the seller, he can pass a good title to a
subsequent buyer acting in good faith, even if under the first transaction he has not obtained a good title

In the case of a mercantile agent, the agent should have the consent of the owner,  should be in
possession of the goods or document mentioned his authority of selling the good, any sale made
by the agent in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent be considered valid as of
sold by the owner only if the agent was expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to sell
the same; conditional that the buyer at the time of contract didn’t have the time to perform due
diligence and even if did he acted in good faith.

According to this Section, it is concerned with the transfer of possession, the rule is that no one
can give the better title to a buyer other than the owner of the good. If the ownership of the goods
in the matter is clear and good with the seller the buyer of the goodwill also have the same title to
the goods bought thereof. While if the title or the ownership is not clear, limited, or defective
with the seller of the goods, the buyer will also have the same limited title to the goods, even if
the buyer has been acted in good faith and paid a fair sum of money for purchasing the goods.

The doctrine which we are taking into has its origin in Latin. This means that the “buyer obtains
no better title than the seller.”  If the seller has the limited title the buyer will also be accounted
for to same and nothing more than that. The above situation illustrates that- if X sells stolen
goods to Y, as X does not have ownership of those goods Y will also not possess any ownership
title over those goods, even though Y had paid a fair price and bought the goods In good faith.

The buyer gets the title of selling the goods when the owner –

1. The owner not acting anything while present at the time of sale;
2. Moreover, assisting in the sale;
3. By allowing the transfer of ownership to another person while having the intention of
same;
4. If the owner acted to induce the buyer to buy.