Kunal buys a refrigerator from a shopkeeper, Rohit, and the property has passed from Rohit to Kunal. Kunal does not take delivery as he has his own pick-up and does not want to pay freight. Kunal and Rohit agree on takin

Rule of Passing of Risk (Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930): The general rule regarding the passing of risk in a contract of sale is encapsulated in the maxim "res perit domino" , which means 'the loss falls on the owner'. Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, states that unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the property (ownership) in them is transferred to the buyer. However, once the property in the goods is transferred to the buyer, the goods are at the buyer's risk, whether delivery has been made or not. Provisos to Section 26: Where delivery has been delayed through the fault of either the buyer or the seller, the goods are at the risk of the party at fault as regards any loss which might not have occurred but for such fault. Nothing in this section shall affect the duties or liabilities of either the seller or the buyer as a bailee of the goods of the other party. In the given situation: Kunal buys a refrigerator from Rohit. The property (ownership) has already passed from Rohit to Kunal. Kunal delays taking delivery, and the refrigerator remains in Rohit's shop with the price unpaid. The refrigerator is destroyed by a flood in Rohit's shop before delivery. Since the property (ownership) in the refrigerator had already passed from Rohit (seller) to Kunal (buyer), the risk of loss also passed to Kunal, even though the delivery had not yet taken place and the price was unpaid. The destruction of the refrigerator by flood is an unforeseen event, and the general rule applies. Conclusion: Based on the provisions of Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Rohit is not liable for the destruction of the refrigerator. Kunal, as the owner, must bear the loss and is required to pay the price of the refrigerator.