Ng Ngat Siang V Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd & Anor

Assignment 2

Question 2

As a general rule , when a person takes goods or buyer , he or she gets only  the same rights to the goods as the person from whom he or she took them or the seller . This rule is expressed in the latin ‘maxim nemo dat quad non habet’ which is give the meaning ‘what he or she does not have’ . This rule is set out in section 27 of Sales of Goods Act 1957.  

The issues given is , where the goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, 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 sell. However , if a goods are brought from a person who is not the owner , and who does not sell them  under the owner’s authority , the buyer does not have require any title .

The cases from “Ng Ngat Siang V Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd & Anor”. The plaintiff bought a car from  2nd defendant effect the transfer of ownership of the car into the plaintiff name , 2nd defendant had to pay Malayan United Industries Finance from whom he had earlier obtained hire purchased facility . In this purpose , 2nd defendant retained registration card . After obtaining the cancelation of it . Then , the plaintiff applied to the court for determination as to whether he or the 1st defendant had a better title of the car. To that end , the 1st defendant acquired no title or interest over the car when they purchased it and their only remedy , if any , is against 2nd defendant personally for the return of the purchase price against the plaintiff the cannot claim any right of ownership over the car .

To be conclude , the reason of this section is to protect the right of ownership . If this rule is not present , then the interest of the true owner would be exposed to danger . The true owner has right and have title to make he or she own decision .