Harrison, a men’s clothing retailer located in Westport,
Connecticut, ordered merchandise from Ninth Street East,
Ltd., a Los Angeles-based clothing manufacturer. Ninth Street
delivered the merchandise to Denver-Chicago Trucking Com-
pany (Denver) in Los Angeles and then sent four invoices to
Harrison that bore the notation “F.O.B. Los Angeles.” Denver
subsequently transferred the merchandise to a connecting car-
rier, Old Colony Transportation Company, for final delivery
to Harrison’s Westport store. When Old Colony tried to
deliver the merchandise, Harrison’s wife asked the truck driver
to deliver the boxes inside the store, but the driver refused.
The dispute remained unresolved, and the truck departed with
Old Colony still in possession of the goods. By letter, Harrison
then notified Ninth Street of the nondelivery, but Ninth
Street was unable to locate the shipment. Ninth Street then
sought to recover the contract purchase price from Harrison.
Harrison refused, contending that risk of loss remained with
Ninth Street because of its refusal to deliver the merchandise
to Harrison’s place of business.
a. What are the arguments that the risk of loss remained
with Ninth Street?
b. What are the arguments that the risk of loss passed to
Harrison?
c. What is the appropriate outcome?
