YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM Construction Helicopters paid Heli- Dyne Systems $315,000 for three helicopters that were in Argentina. Two were ready to fly, and one was disassembled for routine maintenance. The contract said nothing about risk of loss (the parties could have saved a lot of money by reading this chapter). Heli-Dyne arranged for an Argentine company to oversee their loading on board the freight ship Lynx. The two helicopters and 25 crates containing the disassembled craft were properly loaded, but when the ship arrived in Miami, only 7 of the crates appeared. Heli-Dyne refused to supply more parts, and Construction sued. Who bears the loss? Argument for Construction: Construction had no control over the goods until they reached Miami. Although we do not know exactly what happened to the crates, we know the one party that had nothing to do with the loss: Construction. The company should not pay for damage it never caused. Argument for Heli-Dyne: Because the contract failed to specify risk of loss, it is a shipment contract. In such an agreement, risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller delivers the goods to a carrier. Heli-Dyne delivered the goods and has no further responsibility.