Question 1:

Afiqah co-owned with her sister, Aishah a car with registration number WWT 1023. Aishah has no
driving license and give permission to Afiqah to use the car to get to her college on daily basis. Zue, a
classmate to Afiqah thought that the car belongs to Afiqah alone. 3 months later, Zue bought the car
from Afiqah for RM 15,000. She paid in cash. When Zue wants to register title to the car at JPJ,
Aishah, the other co-owner refuse to agree to the transfer. Advise.

The issue in the given situation is to advise in relations to the ownership of the car with the
registration number WWT 1023.

By the provision of section 2 Sale of Goods Act 1957 (SOGA 1957), a sale of goods contract is a sale
where the seller agrees to transfer property in goods to a buyer for a price. In every sale of goods
contract, the principle of Nemo dat quad non habet applies. By this principle, the seller cannot
transfer the ownership to the buyer more than what he has. This principle of nemo dat quad non
habet can be found in section 27 SOGA 1957.

By the provision of section 27 SOGA 1957, where goods are bought from a seller, who is not the
owner or his authorized agent, the buyer will acquire no title to the goods.

In the case of Lim Chui Lai v Zeno Ltd., the appellant bought the goods owned by Zeno Ltd from
Ahmad. Ahmad has no ownership to the goods and has no authority to sell. The court held that Lim
Chui Lai acquire no title to the goods.

However, there are exceptions to the principle of nemo dat quad non habet. By the provision of
section 28 SOGA 1957, in a situation where goods owned by several joint owners and if one of the
joint owners sell the goods to the buyer, the buyer obtain full ownership provided that:

1. the seller has sole possession of the goods by the permission of other joint owners.
2. the buyer is a bona fide buyer for value.
3. the buyer has no knowledge that the seller has no authority to sell.

Applying the above law to the given situation, by the provision of section 27 SOGA 1957, Afiqah
owns 50% ownership to the car, therefore when she sells the car, she only has right to transfer 50%
ownership of the car to Zue. However, the fact that Afiqah has the sole possession of the car with
the permission of her sister and Zue is a bona fide buyer for value makes the transaction as the one
explained in section 28 SOGA 1957.

As a conclusion, I submit that Aishah cannot disagree to sign the transfer document because Zue has
receives full ownership to the car.
Question 2:

Azlan, an owner of a bicycle shop enters into a contract of sale of a mountain bike with Aizuddin. The
contract is made on a condition that the ownership shall not pass until payment is made. Aizuddin
promise to transfer payment in 3 days. Since Aizuddin is a regular customer and live just in nearby
vicinity, Azlan agrees to let Aizuddin took the bicycle home. After 1 week, Azlan receive no payment
from Aizuddin. Azlan request Aizuddin to redeliver the bicycle to the shop but was told that the
bicycle has been sold off to Sufi. Advise as whether Azlan can recover the bicycle from Sufi.