Discuss the passing of property and risk in a sale of goods contract, specifically concerning unascertained goods and the effect of delivery terms. Use the scenario of 300 bags of cement purchased by

Welcome back — been a while! Let's pick up where you left off. a) No, property in the 300 bags of cement had not passed to "God is Good Ent" at the time of the accident. b) The 300 bags of cement became ascertained goods when they were loaded onto the truck hired by "God is Good Ent". This act identified and set aside the specific goods for the contract. c) Yes, "God is Good Ent" can sue the driver of the truck for the cost of the 300 bags of cement if the accident was caused by the driver's negligence. The driver would be liable in tort for negligence, causing damage to property that belonged to "God is Good Ent" (assuming property had passed, as per the original scenario). d) Yes, the answer in (a) would be different. If the contract stipulated that Ghacem would deliver the cement using its own truck, then property would not have passed to "God is Good Ent" at the time of the accident. In such a case, Ghacem (the seller) would retain the risk and property until the goods were delivered to "God is Good Ent"'s premises. The destruction of the goods en route would mean the loss falls on Ghacem. Send me the next one 📸