Lol

.

M4gunners:
The seller, because the buy is still having the money in his /her hand. As far as the money has not entered into the hand of the seller, the buyer is on his /her own.

Agreed. But the seller's goat has damaged the buyers property (money) and the buyer will pay damages equivalent to the property damaged which is obviously the goat...or perhaps...

In law for there to be transfer of chattel, there must be delivery by the vender and payment of the purchase price. In this scenario, there was only agreement, but none of the above conditions took place.

offer and acceptance
equity comes to mind

The seller still owns the goat. In law, for a complete transaction to said to have taken place, there must be agreement to buy and sell, exchange of money called the price and finally delivery.
According to the fact of the case, only agreement took place, the two other conditions is still lacking and as such, the buyer is still legally has possession and ownership of the property (the goat).

MrImole:
Story! story!!

goat chewed all the money in the buyer’s hand

Buyer hasn't paid, end of story.

It's not a crime for grazing animals to graze. At least here.

But then an argument can be made that buyer is entitled to removed his possession from inside the goat. Then seller can agree but only if buyer can insure that goat will be in same condition.

There's a reason why Lawyers and Judges are there.

===============

If in a bank and inline to make a deposit and there's a robbery. Your money is not yet in tellers hands and a receipt given so you're OYO.

Idrismusty97:
LOL. This case is complex. But logically considering the price of a goat, the goat can't possibly eat all the money in the Buyer's hand unless it is N5000 note. And even if is 5k note the buyer will notice immediately before the goat chew it no matter how distracted(Nna this is money we are talking about). So this scenario is purely fictional and unrealistic, It doesn't deserves any opinion.

What is so complex able the question? considering the fact that the money has not yet been paid, and the seller did not directed or volunterity allow the goat to eat his money.

It's very simple, the seller owns the goat.

The transaction is in the progress

As long as the money is still on the buyers hand, the goat belongs to the seller. Simple!!!!

OYO lo Wa!

The goat belongs to the seller. The seller has not received any money. If the buyer was distracted to the extent of allowing the goat to chew all the money in his hand, that is his business. Besides, we do not know how much money was chewed. If the money was chewed, but not swallowed, let the buyer salvage whatever he can. If the buyer is not satisfied, he can go to court.

Bigmarx:
Agreed. But the seller's goat has damaged the buyers property (money) and the buyer will pay damages equivalent to the property damaged which is obviously the goat...or perhaps...

No i disagreed with you, because it is a goat that eat the money not a dog.There is a saying in my place that says "na goat keep the Yam wen goat chop" i hope you will understand better now!

The buyer is xo daft. This is my judgment the seller remains the owner of the End Time goat that refused to be sold out.

bqlekan:
ogbeni, I still dey read.. don't rush me




ok, m done...

the original owner of the goat should be sued for not containing his goat. therefore, he should be held responsible for the goat's action... he owns the goat, but must pay the buyer for damages...

now who owns the goat?

Sue based on what evidence?
This's a matter of buyer words against seller.the seller say he didn't give me any money,infact I didn't see any money from him.

I own d goat.....

principle of vicarious liability should be applied

The story would have made more sense if the story went thus....."A man took his goat to the market, after negotiation, another man agreed to buy.

The buyer brought out the A piece of gold jewlery to pay. The seller agreed to the payment. But both the seller and the buyer were distracted by an activity in the market.

While they were concentrated on this distraction, the goat swallowed the gold jewelery in the buyer’s hand.

Now the question is, who owns the goat?

The buyer or the seller?


Lol. Lawyers over to you.

euromilion:


Sue based on what evidence?
This's a matter of buyer words against seller.the seller say he didn't give me any money,infact I didn't see any money from him.

okay, but the buyer could recognise the goat that ate his money right? why not arrest the goat and ask for remuneration from the supposed owner?

Not only does the seller completely retain ownership of his goat, he does not have to pay a dime in compensation for the money eaten by said goat. I believe the man with the money is guilty of contributory/participatory negligence for allowing the goat to eat his money, which could have been easily prevented had he been more careful, knowing full well that it is the nature of goats to eat such things as paper and other assorted objects.

Furthermore, the buyer approached the seller, and by so doing deliberately and consciously, put himself and his belongs at exposure to the misbehavior of the goat, which misbehavior is actually the nature of the creature and was to be expected. It must be noted that unruly behavior on the part of the goat was duly mitigated against by the seller, who ostensibly must have contained his goat, since it is apparent from the narration that the goat was 1. taken to the market and since goats do not communicate in human languges, it must be assumed that some means of constraint was employed; 2. still constrained by such or other means upon arrival at the market as it had not strayed from it's owner as is in the nature of goats to do.

Furthermore, in accordance with the Law of Nigeria which states that the national currency is the property of the federal government and is not to be destroyed, the buyer is liable to face prosecution for failing to adequately discharge his duty of care.

Now if your animal say a dog destroys another's property you not the dog pays for it and in this case the goat ate the buyer's money hence, the seller must replace that money which coincidentally is the same price the goat was to have been sold for. so seller refunds buyer's money and seller gives buyer that money as purchase price of the goat and goes away with the goat.

That was for an ideal situation. In real life situations a form of compensation out of good will should be offered the seller.

In a way I still find myself agreeing with Kgdavid's post.

Kgdavid:
Not only does the seller completely retain ownership of his goat, he does not have to pay a dime in compensation for the money eaten by said goat. I believe the man with the money is guilty of contributory/participatory negligence for allowing the goat to eat his money, which could have been easily prevented had he been more careful, knowing full well that it is the nature of goats to eat such things as paper and other assorted objects.

Furthermore, the buyer approached the seller, and by so doing deliberately and consciously, put himself and his belongs at exposure to the misbehavior of the goat, which misbehavior is actually the nature of the creature and was to be expected. It must be noted that unruly behavior on the part of the goat was duly mitigated against by the seller, who ostensibly must have contained his goat, since it is apparent from the narration that the goat was 1. taken to the market and since goats do not communicate in human languges, it must be assumed that some means of constraint was employed; 2. still constrained by such or other means upon arrival at the market as it had not strayed from it's owner as is in the nature of goats to do.

Furthermore, in accordance with the Law of Nigeria which states that the national currency is the property of the federal government and is not to be destroyed, the buyer is liable to face prosecution for failing to adequately discharge his duty of care.

I believe the final owner can be determined by whom was negligent.
1, the seller if the goat was not under restraint and moved from its original location to where the buyer was
2, the buyer if he moved too close with the funds accessible to the goat which could equally be assumed to be feed for it

Idrismusty97:
LOL. This case is complex. But logically considering the price of a goat, the goat can't possibly eat all the money in the Buyer's hand unless it is N5000 note. And even if is 5k note the buyer will notice immediately before the goat chew it no matter how distracted(Nna this is money we are talking about). So this scenario is purely fictional and unrealistic, It doesn't deserves any opinion.

well I think the goat has an answer to this question

Goats of the feast

Actually the seller still owns his goat. So far the business hasn't been concluded with payment.


The buyer hasn't paid for the goat. Simple




Like the case of someone who went to a bank to deposit and before he could save the money armed robbers stormed into the bank and took the money from him

Idrismusty97:
LOL. This case is complex. But logically considering the price of a goat, the goat can't possibly eat all the money in the Buyer's hand unless it is N5000 note. And even if is 5k note the buyer will notice immediately before the goat chew it no matter how distracted(Nna this is money we are talking about). So this scenario is purely fictional and unrealistic, It doesn't deserves any opinion.

Nna! It's evident u never jam some kind goats wey dey operate in silence.. The goats dey term '' streets''.. If u no take tym dem go chop ur hand join..

End time goat resisting end of year slaughter

Whoever held the money that was careless enough not to notice the goat chewing it is NOT the owner either way


Bt if na the seller,I pity am small sha, him don use the money send forth the goat

The seller remain the legitimate owner, OYO ni buyer yen wa.

Waoh! Business Law! Contract!

The seller owns the goat.
Basis of my decision;

Although, their as been consensus btw the buyer and the seller, the Consideration(money) wish would act sealed the contract (I.e executed Contract), as nt being transferred to the seller, therefore no contract.