Explanation of Article 360
The article clarified that the buyer who purchased a specific item not owned by the seller, if they request the annulment of the sale in accordance with what is stipulated in Article (359) and the annulment is ruled, can demand compensation from the seller for the damage incurred due to the annulment of the sale, whether the seller was in good faith or bad faith. The article stipulated that for the buyer's right to claim compensation, they must be unaware that the sold item was not owned by the seller, and what is considered is the time of the conclusion of the sale contract; if at the time of concluding the contract they did not know that the sold item was not owned by the seller, they have the right to claim compensation, even if they become aware of it later. However, if at the time of concluding the contract they knew this, they can request the annulment of the sale but will only recover the price without any compensation. The source of compensation after the annulment of the contract cannot be the contract itself, as the contract is nullified by the annulment; rather, it is based on tort liability. If the seller was in bad faith - meaning they knew at the time of concluding the contract that they did not own the sold item - the source of compensation is tortious fault, and if the seller was in good faith, meaning they were unaware of their lack of ownership of the sold item at the time of concluding the contract, the source of compensation is the fault in the formation of the contract.
Related To
Article 360
If a buyer is unaware that the sold item is not owned by the seller, and the court rules to nullify the sale, the buyer may demand compensation, even if the seller acted in good faith.