Abstract
* I would like to thank Peter Webster and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. 1 The principle is elementary and probably older than the classical Roman law where it was thus formulated: D 50.17.54; D 20.1.3.1. See also J Voet, Commentarius ad Pandectas, 2nd edn (1707, transl P Gane 1956) 20.6.8. In Scotland, and indeed in England, the same principle is often expressed as nemo dat quod non habet. 2 Scottish Widows Fund v Buist (1876) 3 R 1078 at 1082 per Lord President Inglis; Scottish Law Commission, Consultative Memorandum on Defective Consent and Consequential Matters (Scot Law Com CM No 42, 1978) para 3.137. 3 Robertson v Wright (1873) 1 R 237 at 243 per Lord Ardmillan; G Watson (ed), Bell’s Dictionary and
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
