Nemo dat and theft: the need for clarity of the impact of the criminal status of rogue middlemen in title conflicts

Sean Rhys Thomas

Nemo dat and theft: the need for clarity of the impact of the criminal status of rogue middlemen in title conflicts

York Law School

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review

Abstract

The basic rule concerning title in English and Welsh law is nemo dat quod non habet: you cannot give what you have not got. The rule causes title conflicts, such as: the original owner hands over their goods to a middleman who disposes them without the original owner’s authority or consent to an innocent purchaser. The middleman either disappears or is not worth suing, meaning the dispute is (almost) invariably between the original owner and the innocent purchaser. Given that stolen goods cannot have their title laundered by a nemo dat exception, the delineation between stolen and non-stolen goods is a key issue but it remains unclear, exacerbated by developments in criminal law over the past twenty years. At the core of this problematization is a question of justice as to innocent purchasers, whose position turns on factors outside their knowledge and control.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Rights and Justice in Public and Private Law
Publisher	Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Publication status	Accepted/In press - 2025

Bibliographical note

This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

Embargoed Document

Sean Thomas Nemo Dat and Theft v10 (2) (ST responses) v2
Accepted author manuscript, 73 KB
Embargo ends: 31/12/99

Cite this

@inbook{a5504fd215e8496dbb1cb982533ed6f0,

title = "Nemo dat and theft: the need for clarity of the impact of the criminal status of rogue middlemen in title conflicts",

abstract = "The basic rule concerning title in English and Welsh law is nemo dat quod non habet: you cannot give what you have not got. The rule causes title conflicts, such as: the original owner hands over their goods to a middleman who disposes them without the original owner{\textquoteright}s authority or consent to an innocent purchaser. The middleman either disappears or is not worth suing, meaning the dispute is (almost) invariably between the original owner and the innocent purchaser. Given that stolen goods cannot have their title laundered by a nemo dat exception, the delineation between stolen and non-stolen goods is a key issue but it remains unclear, exacerbated by developments in criminal law over the past twenty years. At the core of this problematization is a question of justice as to innocent purchasers, whose position turns on factors outside their knowledge and control.",

author = "Thomas, {Sean Rhys}",

note = "This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher{\textquoteright}s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details. ",

year = "2025",

language = "English",

booktitle = "Rights and Justice in Public and Private Law",

publisher = "Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group",

address = "United Kingdom",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Nemo dat and theft

T2 - the need for clarity of the impact of the criminal status of rogue middlemen in title conflicts

AU - Thomas, Sean Rhys

N1 - This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

PY - 2025

Y1 - 2025

N2 - The basic rule concerning title in English and Welsh law is nemo dat quod non habet: you cannot give what you have not got. The rule causes title conflicts, such as: the original owner hands over their goods to a middleman who disposes them without the original owner’s authority or consent to an innocent purchaser. The middleman either disappears or is not worth suing, meaning the dispute is (almost) invariably between the original owner and the innocent purchaser. Given that stolen goods cannot have their title laundered by a nemo dat exception, the delineation between stolen and non-stolen goods is a key issue but it remains unclear, exacerbated by developments in criminal law over the past twenty years. At the core of this problematization is a question of justice as to innocent purchasers, whose position turns on factors outside their knowledge and control.

AB - The basic rule concerning title in English and Welsh law is nemo dat quod non habet: you cannot give what you have not got. The rule causes title conflicts, such as: the original owner hands over their goods to a middleman who disposes them without the original owner’s authority or consent to an innocent purchaser. The middleman either disappears or is not worth suing, meaning the dispute is (almost) invariably between the original owner and the innocent purchaser. Given that stolen goods cannot have their title laundered by a nemo dat exception, the delineation between stolen and non-stolen goods is a key issue but it remains unclear, exacerbated by developments in criminal law over the past twenty years. At the core of this problematization is a question of justice as to innocent purchasers, whose position turns on factors outside their knowledge and control.

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

BT - Rights and Justice in Public and Private Law

PB - Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

ER -