Periculum est emptoris

For the other important consequence of a contract of sale we must turn our attention to Inst. Ill, 23, 3:

"Cum autem emptio et venditio contracta sit..., periculum rei venditae statim ad emptorem pertinet, tametsi adhuc ea res emptori tradita non sit."

The text continues to give some illustrations:

"[I]taque si homo mortuus sit vel aliqua parte corporis laesus fuerit, aut aedes totae aut aliqua ex parti incendio consumptae fuerint, aut fundus vi fluminis totus vel aliqua ex parte ablatus sit, sive etiam inundatione aquae aut arboribus turbine deicctis longe minor aut deterior esse coeperit: emptoris damnum est, cui necesse est, licet rem non fuerit nactus, pretium solvere."

This is the famous risk rule, usually crisply expressed in the words "periculum est emptoris".

What we are concerned with in the present context is the period between conclusion of the contract of sale and the transfer of ownership. Here the problem arises whether the loss that has occurred affects the purchaser's obligation to pay the purchase price or not.^[1439] Does this obligation stand, i.e. does the purchaser have to pay, although he does not receive the goods, or receives them in a damaged state (this would be periculum emptoris)? Or is it the vendor who loses out in that he does no longer have the goods (or retains them in a deteriorated state) and will not be able to recover the purchase price (the full purchase price) either (periculum venditoris)? Piles of literature have been penned on this problem in general^[1440] and on the attitude of the

® Proc. D.

® For the meaning of periculum in legal texts generally, see Geoffrey MacCormack. "Periculum", (1979) 96 ZSS 129 sqq.; for the present context, see esp. Emil Seckcl, Ernst Levy, "Die Gefahrtragung beim Kauf im klassischen romischen Recht", (1927) 47 ZSS 248 sqq.; Arangio-Ruiz, Compravendita, pp. 250 sqq.; Max Kaser, "Die actio furti des Verkäufers", (1979) 96 ZSS 111 sqq.

^a "Preisgefahr" or "Gegenkistungsgefahr" as opposed to "Sachgefahr" (periculum rei). It is the former, too, that modern English and French law have in mind when they refer to "risk” or "risque".

^& For a comprehensive comparative investigation, see Gunter Hager, Die Gefahrtragung beim Kauf (1982); for some elegant reflections based on the diversity of modern approaches, see Alan Watson, Legal Transplants (1974), pp. 82 sqq.

Roman lawyers towards it in particular.^{[1441] 61 * [1442] As far as Roman law is concerned, it is essentially only one proposition that is above all doubt, and that is that Justinian opted for the first alternative: periculum emptoris. But whether that reflects the position in classical law is not at all easy to decide.}

2.