Schock, the buyer, negotiated to purchase a mobile home that was owned by and located on the sellers’ property. On April 15, 1985, Schock appeared at the Ronderos’ (the sellers’) home and paid them the agreed-on purchase price of

$3,900. Shock received a bill of sale and an assurance from the Ronderos that the title certificate to the mobile home would be delivered soon. Also on 550 Part 3 Sales and Leases of Goods April 15 and with the permission of the sellers, Schock prepared the mobile home for removal. His preparations included the removal of skirting around the mobile home’s foundation, the tie-downs, and the foundation blocks, leaving the mobile home to rest on the wheels of its chassis. Schock intended to remove the mobile home from the Ronderos’ property a week later, and the Ronderos had no objection to having the mobile home remain on their premises until that time. Two days later, the mobile home was destroyed by high winds as it sat on the Ronderos’ property. Schock received a clear certificate of title to the mobile home in the mail. Thereafter, Schock sued the Ronderos for return of his money on the ground that when the mobile home was destroyed, the risk of loss remained with the Ronderos. Who should win the lawsuit? [Schock v Ronderos, 394 NW2d 697 (ND)]

Appendix