NRS
104.2403 Power to transfer; good faith purchase of goods; “entrusting.”
1. A purchaser of goods acquires all title
which the purchaser’s transferor had or had power to transfer except that a
purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the
interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good
title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under
a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though:
(a) The transferor was deceived as to the
identity of the purchaser;
(b) The delivery was in exchange for a check
which is later dishonored;
(c) It was agreed that the transaction was to be
a “cash sale”; or
(d) The delivery was procured through fraud
punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.
2. Any entrusting of possession of goods
to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives the merchant power to
transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business.
3. “Entrusting” includes any delivery and
any acquiescence in retention of possession regardless of any condition
expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of
whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor’s disposition of the
goods have been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law.
4. The rights of other purchasers of goods
and of lien creditors are governed by the articles on secured transactions
(article 9) and documents of title (article 7).
(Added to NRS by 1965,
800; A 1991,
412)
Part 5
Performance
Notes of Decisions
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mendenhall (1997)
nev · cites it 5×
“If either of these questions is answered in the negative, the transfer was void pursuant to NRS 104.2403. As a fallback position, the Mendenhalls argue that even if the transfer was void under NRS 104.”
Godfrey v. Gilsdorf (1970)
nev · cites it 2×
“” NRS 104.2403(2). Gilsdorf was a “buyer in the ordinary course of business.”
Cooper v. Pacific Automobile Insurance (1979)
nev
“Nevada law provides that “[a] person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value” even if that first person obtained the property “in exchange for a check which is later dishonored.”
Perry v. Byrd (1971)
nev
“Furthermore, there was believable testimony, before the trial court, that the appellant was made aware of the respondent’s interest.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2403(1) — 1 case
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mendenhall (1997)
nev
“If either of these questions is answered in the negative, the transfer was void pursuant to NRS 104.2403. As a fallback position, the Mendenhalls argue that even if the transfer was void under NRS 104.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2403(2) — 1 case
Godfrey v. Gilsdorf (1970)
nev
“” NRS 104.2403(2). Gilsdorf was a “buyer in the ordinary course of business.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2403(2)(3) — 2 cases
Godfrey v. Gilsdorf (1970)
nev
“” NRS 104.2403(2). Gilsdorf was a “buyer in the ordinary course of business.”
Perry v. Byrd (1971)
nev
“Furthermore, there was believable testimony, before the trial court, that the appellant was made aware of the respondent’s interest.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2403(l)(b) — 1 case
Cooper v. Pacific Automobile Insurance (1979)
nev
“Nevada law provides that “[a] person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value” even if that first person obtained the property “in exchange for a check which is later dishonored.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.