Aaron purchased footballs from Matthew for $370. Matthew had purchased the footballs from Tom by providing Tom with a bad check. Tom contacted Matthew after he learned Matthew did not have sufficient funds in his account and demanded that Matthew return the footballs. Matthew informed him that he had already sold them to Aaron.

The principle in Law 'Nemo dat quod non habet' states that an individual connot give what he does not have

Indeed Tom can rescind the contract with Matthew as he possesses voidable title to the balls

Explanation:

Until consideration has moved from Matthew to Tom the validity of the agreement/Contract remains inconclusive.

Considering his Account is not funded means he has no valid title to the Balls, he is merely in possession of the Balls but not the Owner.

Tom can sue demanding a return of the Balls irrespective of Matthew having sold them to Aaron.

Another illustration could be given of a thief who sells off a property. Inspite of the Buyer being unaware, because the thief has a voidable title it makes the transaction invalid.

what

explanation:

answer; sensory adaptation;