Premature Delivery Legal Implications

Certainly! Here's a brief clarification on the relevant articles from the Civil Code of the Philippines:
- Article *: Obligations to deliver a specific thing must be fulfilled exactly as agreed. Since A promised to deliver the husky on December *, any delivery before that is considered premature, and B has the right to reject it.
- Article *: This article addresses delay in fulfilling obligations. Since B rejected the delivery due to its prematurity, there's no delay on B’s part.
- Article *: A fortuitous event, like the lightning strike, exempts A from liability for the husky’s loss. Such events are unforeseen and unavoidable, absolving A from fulfilling the obligation as the loss was without fault or negligence.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!

In the scenario you've described, there appears to be no negligence on A's part. The death of the husky due to a lightning strike is considered a fortuitous event under Article *, which exempts A from liability since it was unforeseen and unavoidable. If you need further clarification or have additional questions, let me know!

Case Rating: *
In this scenario, A is not considered negligent for delivering the husky prematurely. Although A delivered early, B's rejection was valid, and the obligation was not yet due. The lightning strike, a fortuitous event, exempts A from liability as it was unforeseen and unavoidable. Premature delivery does not equate to negligence under these circumstances.