* if you already done answering this question before please ignore it, i'm looking for other opinions. Thank you in advance.* Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one gives what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. It is equivalent to the civil (continental) Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet rule, which means "one cannot transfer to another more rights than they have". The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner. Based on the facts above critically discuss THREE (3) exceptions to the rule and to what extend these exceptions protect the rights of the bona fide purchaser. Support your answer with relevant statutory provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1957 and decided cases