take possession of them, their loss is borne by the seller as owner. The lessee, however, acquires through the contract only the right to use the land. The crop itself is his own newly produced property, arising from property he already owns; he did not acquire it through the lease. What he acquired through the lease was the benefit of the land that enables the crop to grow until it reaches full maturity.

A distinction must therefore be drawn between a calamity affecting purchased crops or fruit and one affecting the benefit of leased land under cultivation. This is a treacherous point, where judgment falters and understanding goes astray. Many judges, valuers, those administering calamity remissions, property owners and lessees have erred here. Some even suppose that a calamity affecting the lease of cultivated land is equivalent to one affecting purchased crops. Conversely, some students of jurisprudence suppose that, when cultivated land suffers an affliction preventing the crop from reaching maturity, the benefit has not diminished and none of it has been lost. Anyone who reflects on the matter will recognize that both views are mistaken.

Land leased for planting trees or constructing buildings is analogous to land leased for cultivation. The lessor does not guarantee the value of the trees or buildings if they are destroyed. But suppose an affliction prevents the full enjoyment of the benefit to which the contract entitles the lessee: for example, an enemy takes control and prevents the use of the trees and buildings; locusts or another affliction damage the planted trees; or wind demolishes the buildings, or something similar occurs. In such cases, the benefit to which the contract entitles the lessee has diminished, just as it does in the case of cultivated land.

Since many people mistakenly suppose that a lessee is granted a remission for calamity damage affecting