Sale under a voidable title.

The highwayman was guilty of an aggravated form of stealing and did not obtain even a voidable title.

Unless the owner stipulates to the contrary, the property passes on delivery, if it has not already passed, and the buyer obtains a voidable title.

In our example, if B has induced A to sell him the goods by making a misrepresentation, then B will acquire only a voidable title.

We have already seen that someone with a voidable title can nevertheless transfer to an innocent purchaser a perfect title, provided he does so before his title is avoided.

A voidable title is less than perfect and yet section 23 allows a seller with a voidable title to confer a perfect title upon an innocent purchaser.

However, this is not to be taken literally for the simple reason that a person who obtains ownership of property by deceit does not obtain full title to the property; only a voidable title.

Because the effect of the deception may be to persuade the owner to pass title to the goods, albeit on a voidable title, those goods may not "belong to another" at the time of the appropriation.

If this had happened the rogue could not have conferred title upon the innocent purchaser (unless under some other exception to the nemo dat principle) for the rogue would no longer have had a voidable title.

The insurers appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that there had been no appropriation of the property by the buyer but that the owner had transferred the ownership of the property to the buyer, who had obtained a voidable title.

'Where the seller of goods has a voidable title to them, but his title has not been avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of the seller's defect of title.'