If person C were able to show either, or both, of those things, person B ’s acquisition of the asset would not come within subsection (1A), the ‘nemo dat quod non habet’ principle 3 See for example Morrisson v Robertson 1908 SC 332. 4 See for example MacLeod v Kerr 1965 SC 253. 5 DL Carey Miller with David Irvine, Corporeal Moveables in Scots Law (2nd edn, W. Green & Son Ltd 2005) para 8.15. 13 This document relates to the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 75A) as amended at Stage 2 would therefore apply, and so person B’s title to the asset would be voidable at the instance of person C. 45.