Issue: If what happens to the fruit is not total destruction but rather a reduction in value—for example, some of the bunches deteriorate and become shrivelled, inferior dates—does the seller bear liability for the loss? Yes, he is liable for the reduction, because if he is liable for the whole, then he is liable for part of it. These dates that have become shrivelled and are fit only for livestock feed are, in practical terms, like destroyed property. Thus, liability for the reduction rests with the seller.
But if the reduction is caused by the purchaser—for instance, if the purchaser does not know how to harvest and pick the fruit, and the crop spoils—does the seller bear liability? The answer is no, because it resulted from the purchaser’s own action.
If a human being destroys it, the purchaser is given the choice between rescinding the sale or affirming it and claiming compensation from the destroyer.
The ripening of part of a tree constitutes ripening for that tree and for the rest of the same type of fruit in the orchard.
His statement, “If a human being destroys it, the purchaser is given the choice between rescinding the sale or affirming it and claiming compensation from the destroyer”: If the fruit is destroyed by an identifiable person from whom compensation may be recovered, the purchaser has the choice. If he wishes, he may rescind the sale, in which case liability falls upon the seller. Or, if he wishes, he may affirm the sale and seek compensation from the destroyer. This is why he said, “or affirming it and claiming compensation from the destroyer.”
It is well known that, since the choice belongs to him, he will select what is more beneficial to him. Thus, if the price of the fruit has risen and it is easy to recover compensation from the destroyer, which option will he choose? He will affirm the sale and seek compensation from the destroyer. For example, suppose that he bought the fruit for one hundred, then someone came and destroyed it when its value had risen to two hundred. Which is better: to rescind the sale and take one hundred from the seller—after which the seller recovers two hundred from the destroyer—or to take two hundred from the destroyer himself? The latter is undoubtedly better.
Conversely, if the fruit has declined in value, he will choose to rescind the sale and recover from the seller. Likewise, if the destroyer delays payment or is poor while the seller is wealthy, he will choose rescission. Conversely, he will choose to affirm the sale.