(. . .)
Loss of or damage to the goods after the risk has passed to the buyer does not discharge him from his obligation to pay the price, unless the loss or damage is due to an act or omission of the seller.
1. Article 66 introduces the short chapter on the passing of risk and states the truism that the buyer is not excused from paying the price if the goods are damaged or lost after the risk of loss has passed to him. The important question is when that transfer is deemed to take place and this question is addressed in art. 67-69.
2. The concluding language, perhaps equally obviously, holds the seller responsible for any loss or damage to the goods caused by his act or omission even though the risk of loss has passed to the buyer. A similar qualification, differently expressed, appears in the provincial Acts: see e.g., OSGA s.21(b). As the [Secretariat] Commentary notes (pp. 198-199), the loss or damage to the goods may be caused by an act or omission of the seller which does not amount to a breach of the seller's obligations under the contract, as for example where the seller negligently damages the goods after they have reached their destination. By way of contrast, the reservation in OSGA 21(b) is limited to the duties of the seller or buyer as a bailee of the goods of the other party. This is not intended of course to relieve the seller from liability for damage or loss caused to the goods while he is acting in some other capacity.
(. . .)
Go to entire text of Ziegel Commentary
Go to Database Directory || Go to Bibliography