Find and read St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Toman, 351 N.W.2d 146 (S.Dak. 1984). The case involves the loss by fire of a house recently sold. Briefly, the facts are as follows: James Toman advertised a small house on his farm for sale. The ad stated that the buyer was to remove the house from Toman’s land, but under terms to be negotiated. On September 23, Van Collins bought the house. Collins had no immediate plans to remove the house, and no specific time for removal was discussed. Collins knew before the sale that Toman was still occupying the house on a part-time basis and that it could be removed only with Toman’s approval. Collins also agreed before the sale that Toman could rent the house to hunters during the upcoming hunting season. On September 25, Toman left on a business trip. Before he returned the next day, fire completely destroyed the house. He filed an insurance claim for the loss under his policy with St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. St. Paul filed suit, asking the court to declare that Toman did not have an insurable interest in the house at the time of the fire and that the risk of loss had passed to Collins. The trial court found that title to the house had passed to Collins but the risk of loss had not, and entered judgment in favor of Toman. St. Paul appealed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Answer the following questions:
a. Why did the court consider the contract for the sale of the house a contract for a sale of goods (instead of a contract for a sale of real estate)?
b. What was the basis for St. Paul’s claim that Toman had no insurable interest in the house? What did the court say in response to St. Paul’s claim?
c. Did the court consider Toman a merchant? What difference did it make?
d. Did the court conclude that “tender of delivery” of the house had been made? What was the court’s reasoning?
e. Who did the court decide should bear the cost of the loss of the house?