The Future of Friendship

According to the Court, the defendant must bear the risk of loss under Article 2-509(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code. The rule had to be handed over to a freight forwarder in two different situations. Either the parties do not agree on a place where the purchased item is to be handed over to a carrier and where the risk of loss passes to the buyer upon delivery to the first carrier, or the parties agree that the purchased item will be handed over to the carrier at a specific location, and then the risk of loss will pass to the buyer upon delivery to the buyer. Carrier at that particular location, even if it is not the first carrier. This rule applies both under the Czech Civil Code and United Nations Sales Law. All other cases. Article 66 CISG is interpreted in such a way that the risk affects not only the item purchased, but also the documents relating to the goods, i.e. documents with a traditional function. [5] Neither the Czech commented literature nor the case law give any indication of this so far. In my view, the wording of the Czech Civil Code does not preclude that interpretation.

If the goods are in conformity with the contract, the risk of loss is effectively transferred upon performance of the delivery obligations, as is the ownership structure. And the analysis here would be the same as the one we looked at when reviewing the title change. There is, of course, a difference between individual things and fungible things. Subsequently, while the lawyers argue, the Delta camp burns and the sponges are destroyed. According to the rules, the risk of loss does not pass to the buyer until the seller has delivered, which in this case has not happened. .

Comments are closed.