<P> State v. Mermis, 105 Wash. App . 738, 20 P. 3d 1044, 44 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 446, Wash. App . Div. 1, Apr 09, 2001 </P> <Dl> <Dd> The difference between theft and breach of contract or failure to pay a debt is criminal intent . (FN25) Mermis seeks shelter in the rules that apply to buyers and sellers of goods . But a thief is not a buyer, and Mermis' argument glosses over key aspects of both the UCC and the criminal law . Generally, a thief takes no title whatsoever to stolen goods . (FN26) When a thief takes "delivery" of goods by deception, he acquires at best voidable title . (FN27) Such a thief may pass good title to a good faith purchaser under the voidable title doctrine, but the thief has no title superior to that of the true owner . </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> The difference between theft and breach of contract or failure to pay a debt is criminal intent . (FN25) Mermis seeks shelter in the rules that apply to buyers and sellers of goods . But a thief is not a buyer, and Mermis' argument glosses over key aspects of both the UCC and the criminal law . Generally, a thief takes no title whatsoever to stolen goods . (FN26) When a thief takes "delivery" of goods by deception, he acquires at best voidable title . (FN27) Such a thief may pass good title to a good faith purchaser under the voidable title doctrine, but the thief has no title superior to that of the true owner . </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> (FN27) Voidable title is distinct from "valid title," which can be passed freely, and "void title," which cannot be passed to any buyer (regardless of good faith status) because of the nemo dat quod non habet ("he who hath not cannot give") rule . See Menachem Mautner, "The Eternal Triangles of the Law": Toward a Theory of Priorities in Conflicts </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl>

You cannot give what you do not have in latin