Short answer. Yes, in defined situations. Where ownership of the goods has passed to the buyer and he wrongfully refuses to pay, the seller may sue for the price itself. He may also do so where the price was payable on a fixed day regardless of delivery, even though ownership has not passed.
What the law says
Where, under a contract of sale, the ownership of the goods has passed to the buyer and he wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the goods according to the terms of the contract of sale, the seller may maintain an action against him for the price of the goods.
Civil Code, Article 1595 — Seller's Action for the Price. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Where, under a contract of sale, the price is payable on a certain day, irrespective of delivery or of transfer of title and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay such price, the seller may maintain an action for the price although the ownership in the goods has not passed.
Civil Code, Article 1595 — Seller's Action for the Price. Read the full provision →
Why suing for the price is better than suing for damages
The two actions are not equivalent, and the difference is money. An action for the price asks the court to award the agreed sum — the seller proves the contract and the non-payment. An action for damages for non-acceptance asks for the loss the breach caused, which where there is an available market is measured by the difference between the contract price and the market price when the goods should have been accepted. If the market has not moved, that difference can be small or nothing, even though the seller is stuck with goods he did not want. So the seller who can bring himself within the price action is in a materially stronger position.
The two straightforward routes
The first is ownership. Once title has passed to the buyer, the goods are his and the price is simply a debt he owes; his refusal to pay is a wrongful neglect and the seller sues for the sum. The second does not depend on ownership at all. Where the contract makes the price payable on a certain day irrespective of delivery or transfer of title, the arrival of that day creates the obligation. A buyer cannot escape by pointing out that he never took the goods or that title never moved. Contracts with fixed payment dates independent of shipment are drafted precisely to secure this advantage.
The buyer's defence, and the bailee route
The Code gives the buyer one specific defence to the fixed-day action: that the seller, at any time before judgment, has manifested an inability to perform the contract on his part, or an intention not to perform it. A seller who has quietly disposed of the goods elsewhere or shut down cannot demand the price. There is also a route for the seller left holding goods that title has not passed on. If the goods cannot readily be resold for a reasonable price, and the fourth paragraph of Art. 1596 does not apply, the seller may offer to deliver; if the buyer refuses to receive them, the seller may notify the buyer that he now holds the goods as bailee for the buyer, and thereafter treat them as the buyer's and sue for the price.
Choosing your remedy
Custom-made or highly specialised goods are the classic case for the bailee route, because there is no market to resell them into and a damages award measured against a market price would be meaningless. Note what that route requires: a genuine offer to deliver, a refusal, and then a clear notice to the buyer — all of which should be documented as they happen rather than reconstructed later. Note too that this article gives a right to sue, not a right to seize anything; the seller ends up with a judgment that still has to be enforced against a buyer who may have no assets. Weigh that against rescinding and reselling before you commit, and have the contract terms reviewed by counsel, since the payment clause usually decides which door is open to you.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1595 — Seller's Action for the Price
- Civil Code, Article 1596 — Seller's Action for Damages (Non-Acceptance)