Exceptions for Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
However the "nemo dat" rule is subject for the following exceptions such are provided by the Act: like;
(a) Estoppel
With S.23 (1) provides that the "nemo dat" rule will not apply whether "the owner of the goods is throuhg his conduct preluded from denying the seller's authority for such to sell". Moreover this is illustrated with Pickard v Sears (44). Although an estoppel will be raised against such the owner of the goods only whether his conduct misled a third party belongs believing that the person who that was selling the disputed goods such was either had the owner's authority or their owner's authority to sell them actually.
(b) Sale by a Factor
However sale by a factor gives a good title to the buyer in such good faith. Further the factor is a mercantile agent whose business is that to sell or otherwise deal in like goods. Conversely under the Factors Act 1889 however he can sell goods entrusted to him and then like give a good title provided the conditions of the Act are complied about. Moreover these conditions are such the goods shall have been entrusted for him in the ordinary course of his business and such they shall be in his possession along consent of the owner.
(c) Sale under a Voidable Title
Whether the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto although his title has not been avoided on time of the sale, on a buyer in good faith exclusive of notice of the defect in the seller's title such acquires a good title. So with section 24. Although an example of Lewis v Avery there.
(d) Resale by a Seller in Possession
A person who has sold goods, hence has remained in possession of them or of the documents of about title to them, and like such transfers the goods or else like about documents of title to a third person so such person acquires a good title whereas he receives the goods in good faith and exclusive of notice of the previous sale with Section 26 (1) there.
(e) Sale by a buyer in Possession
However where a person having bought or agreed for buy goods obtains with the seller's consent possession of the goods or of the documents of title to them, then such a transfer through that person of the goods or documents of title for a third person delivery them in good faith and exclusive of notice of lien or exclusive of other right of the original seller in such regard to the goods so that has the same effect as whether the person making the transfer such were a mercantile agent in possession of the goods or may documents of title regarding the consent of the owner. But the seller has rights against the original purchaser since cannot claim the goods from the second purchaser with Section 26 (2). Like Cahn v Pockett's Bristol Channel Steamer Packet Co. Ltd.: such C forwarded to X, like a foreign purchaser, that a bill of exchange drawn on X for acceptance. Although without accepting the bill of exchange X transferred such bill of landing to P for value. Moreover it was held that P had acquired a good title like X had obtained possession of the bill of lading regards C's consent.
(f) Sale below Statutory powers of sale, that like sale under the Uncollected Goods Act there.
(g) Sale below a common law power of sale, that like; sale through an agent of necessity.
(h) Sale below a court order. And one is
(i) Sale in market also.