Practice question
A debtor presently owes delivery of a specific instrument and negligently damages it before delivery. Liability for the proved negligence is otherwise established. The debtor invokes only absence of legal delay as total immunity. Which is best?
- Negligence liability and legal delay are distinct; absence of delay alone does not erase the established duty of care.
- No debtor owes any care before a formal demand.
- Every negligent act is necessarily immune in a pure obligation.
- Only intentional fraud can ever matter.
- The instrument becomes ownerless.
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles1163-1166,1170,1179,1188-1190,1196-1198,1200-1205 and1211-1222: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.