Contract Dispute Over Transfer of Risk and Ownership in Sale of Goods

The case concerned a dispute over the interpretation of a contract for the sale of goods, specifically regarding the date on which the transfer of ownership and associated risks occurred. The lower court had ruled that the transfer of risk was tied to the physical delivery of the goods to the buyer's premises, rather than the formal signing of the sales agreement or the availability of the goods at the seller's location as stipulated in certain clauses. The highest court rejected the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision on the grounds that, in the absence of explicit contractual language mandating the immediate transfer of risk upon the sale's conclusion, the interpretation adopted by the lower court, linking the transfer of risk to the buyer's effective receipt and taking possession of the merchandise, was a reasonable finding of fact based on the overall context and execution of the agreement.