received and delivered possession under coercion. Each must therefore return what he received to the other whenever he is able, because it was received without right, even though the recipient was coerced. If the property received under coercion is lost or destroyed while in the recipient’s possession, he is liable if he caused its destruction through his own action, negligence or transgression. For, at most, he holds it in trust, and someone holding property in trust is liable if he destroys it or it is lost through his negligence or transgression. This applies to a lessee, a depositary, a manager of a profit-sharing investment, and an agent.

If, however, it is lost without negligence on his part, does his possession entail liability because he received another person’s property without that person’s permission in order to ward off harm to himself? Or does he hold it in trust because his taking possession of it was not unlawful?

We say: its loss while in the coerced person’s possession is equivalent to his destroying it under coercion, concerning which there is a difference of opinion. In some respects, this resembles a loan for use: the borrower receives the property for his own benefit, just as the coerced person receives it to ward off harm to himself. The former receives it with the owner’s permission, while the latter receives it with the Lawgiver’s permission. If, however, the coerced recipient has taken payment from it toward a debt, he is then liable for it, because it has been applied to his benefit—like someone compelled by necessity to take another person’s food to eat.