Explanation of Article 309
The article addressed the ruling on the sale when the item is specified by providing a sample (model), as the sample is considered a means of achieving the buyer's knowledge of the sold item and dispenses with specifying its descriptions. The first paragraph clarified that the sold item must match the sample, noting that a slight difference between the sample and the sold item does not negate the conformity between them as long as the conformity is achieved in the characteristics intended by the contracting parties, and the difference is in characteristics not intended in the contract. The second paragraph clarified who bears the burden of proving the conformity of the sold item to the sample if the sample is lost or damaged and the buyer claims non-conformity, as follows: First: If the sample is lost or damaged while in the buyer's possession and the seller claims that the sold item matches the sample and the buyer claims non-conformity; the seller's statement is accepted unless the buyer proves non-conformity. Second: If the sample is lost or damaged while in the seller's possession and he claims that the sold item matches the sample and the buyer claims non-conformity; the buyer's statement is accepted unless the seller proves conformity. Based on this, the burden of proof lies with the party responsible for the inability to verify conformity due to the destruction or loss of the sample while in their possession.
Related To
Article 309
-
If the sale is by sample, the sold item must be identical to the sample.
-
If the sample is lost or damaged while in the possession of any of the contracting parties, even if the fault is not attributable thereto, and the parties disagree on whether or not the sold item is identical to the sample, the assertion of the other party shall prevail, unless proven otherwise by the party in whose possession the sample was lost or damaged.