Explanation of Article 467

Explanation of Article 467

The article addresses the effect of the destruction or damage of the contracted item before it is delivered to the employer. The first paragraph explains the effect of the destruction or damage before delivery on what the contractor deserves in terms of wages and what expenses they bear; the contractor is not entitled to wages for the work done if the item is destroyed or damaged before delivery to the employer, even if the destruction or damage is due to reasons beyond the contractor's control, such as the premises catching fire with the furniture required to be customized before delivery to the employer; thus, the contractor is not entitled to wages for the work done whether the materials were theirs or the employer's, and the contractor cannot demand compensation from the employer for any expenses incurred. If the work materials belong to the contractor, their destruction or damage is their responsibility because the contractor is required to achieve a goal, which is to complete the work and deliver it to the employer; since this goal was not achieved, the contractor is not entitled to anything from the employer, except if the employer was in breach of their obligation to receive the work at the time of destruction or damage; in this case, the contractor is entitled to the full agreed-upon wage because they fulfilled the requirement and the breach was on the part of the employer.

The second paragraph explains the scenario where the materials are provided by the employer and are destroyed or damaged due to reasons beyond the contractor's control, such as force majeure or the actions of others; the contractor is not responsible for the destruction or damage of these materials, and thus the employer cannot demand their value from the contractor unless the contractor was in breach of their obligation to deliver the work at the time of destruction or damage, and it was not proven that the item would have been destroyed or damaged had it been delivered without breach of obligation; because the contractor's obligation regarding these materials is to preserve them, which is an obligation of care, not of achieving a goal; the materials remain the property of their owner, the employer, even if they are in the contractor's possession, and the item is destroyed at the owner's risk according to general rules, except if the employer proves that the contractor was in breach of their delivery obligation at the time of destruction or damage, and that the employer had warned them about delivery; both breach of delivery and warning must be present for the contractor to be considered negligent and liable for compensation. The paragraph exempts the contractor from liability in this case if it is proven that the destruction or damage would have occurred to those materials even if they had been delivered on time, such as delaying the delivery of the customized furniture and a flood affecting the village where the employer's place is located; the damage would have affected the furniture even if it had been delivered to the employer. This ruling is merely an application of the general rule established in paragraph (2) of Article (166), which states: "If the subject of the obligation is an act involving the delivery of an item and the debtor fails to deliver it after being warned until it is destroyed or damaged, the liability falls on them unless it is proven that the destruction or damage would have occurred even if the item had been delivered to the creditor."

The scenario addressed in this paragraph is when the destruction or damage is due to reasons beyond the contractor's control, but if the destruction or damage is due to the contractor's fault, such as failing to preserve the materials provided by the employer, resulting in their destruction or damage, the contractor is liable for compensation in this case, and the liability does not depend on warning; because the subject of the obligation, which is preserving the materials, has become impossible due to their action, so warning is futile; applying paragraph (b) of Article (176).

Based on what the paragraph stipulates, the contractor is required to compensate the employer for the value of the materials provided and for any damage suffered in two cases:

1. If the contractor is in breach of delivery and has been warned, even if the destruction or damage occurred due to reasons beyond their control.
2. If the destruction or damage is due to the contractor's fault, even without warning. In both cases, the contractor does not receive wages for their work nor recover their expenses.

What the article contains in its two paragraphs establishes that the contractor is obligated to deliver the completed work to the employer, and the contractor's breach of this obligation results in liability. It is clear from the article that the risk of destruction or damage after delivery falls on the employer, and the contractor is entitled to their full wage, with delivery being according to Article (468) by placing the completed work at the employer's disposal and notifying them of this, even if it is not in their physical possession.

Related To

Article 467

1. If a thing is destroyed or damaged prior to its delivery to the client due to a reason not attributable to the contractor, the contractor may not demand payment of the agreed-upon fee or reimbursement of the expenses incurred, unless the client was in breach of his obligation to take delivery of the work at the time of destruction or damage.

2. If the materials are provided by the client and the thing is destroyed or damaged prior to its delivery due to a reason not attributable to the contractor, the client may not demand from the contractor payment of the value of such materials, unless the contractor prior to the destruction or damage was notified that he was in breach of his obligation to deliver the work and it is not established that the thing would have been destroyed or damaged had he delivered it without breaching his obligation.