Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Loss of The Thing Due

    Uploaded by

    liks5poyongan
    Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop to be cleaned. The shop agreed to return the ring by February 1st, 1999 but asked Kristina to return on February 6th instead as the work was not finished. On February 6th, Kristina was informed the ring had been stolen by a thief the night before. Kristina sued the shop for damages, but the shop claimed force majeure as a defense. The court found that since the shop was already late returning the ring on the agreed upon date, they were liable for the loss even if it was due to forces outside their control like theft.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Loss of The Thing Due

    Uploaded by

    liks5poyongan
    3K views1 page
    Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop to be cleaned. The shop agreed to return the ring by February 1st, 1999 but asked Kristina to return on February 6th instead as the work was not finished. On February 6th, Kristina was informed the ring had been stolen by a thief the night before. Kristina sued the shop for damages, but the shop claimed force majeure as a defense. The court found that since the shop was already late returning the ring on the agreed upon date, they were liable for the loss even if it was due to forces outside their control like theft.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Loss of the thing due

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop to be cleaned. The shop agreed to return the ring by February 1st, 1999 but asked Kristina to return on February 6th instead as the work was not finished. On February 6th, Kristina was informed the ring had been stolen by a thief the night before. Kristina sued the shop for damages, but the shop claimed force majeure as a defense. The court found that since the shop was already late returning the ring on the agreed upon date, they were liable for the loss even if it was due to forces outside their control like theft.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    Loss of The Thing Due

    Uploaded by

    liks5poyongan
    Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop to be cleaned. The shop agreed to return the ring by February 1st, 1999 but asked Kristina to return on February 6th instead as the work was not finished. On February 6th, Kristina was informed the ring had been stolen by a thief the night before. Kristina sued the shop for damages, but the shop claimed force majeure as a defense. The court found that since the shop was already late returning the ring on the agreed upon date, they were liable for the loss even if it was due to forces outside their control like theft.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Loss of the thing due; Force Majeure (2000)

    Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop for cleaning. The jewelry shop undertook to


    return the ring by February 1, 1999. When the said date arrived, the jewelry shop informed
    Kristina that the Job was not yet finished. They asked her to return five days later. On February
    6, 1999, Kristina went to the shop to claim the ring, but she was informed that the same was
    stolen by a thief who entered the shop the night before. Kristina filed an action for damages
    against the jewelry shop which put up the defense of force majeure. Will the action prosper or
    not?

    SUGGESTED ANSWER:

    The action will prosper. Since the defendant was already in default not having delivered the ring
    when delivery was demanded by plaintiff at due date, the defendant is liable for the loss of the
    thing and even when the loss was due to force majeure.

    Non-Payment  of Amortizations;  Subdivision  Buyer; When justified (2005)

    Bernie bought on installment a residential subdivision lot from   DEVLAND.   After   having 


    faithfully   paid   the installments for 48 months, Bernie discovered that DEVLAND had failed to
    develop the subdivision in accordance  with  the  approved  plans  and  specifications within the
    time frame in the plan. He thus wrote a

    You might also like