The role of payment in the contract is highlighted by a clause in
a few documents from Umma: “he (buyer) has completed the sil-
ver” (kug-ta ì-til: e.g., Steinkeller 99). A clause in Nippur contracts,
“this silver has filled his (seller’s) hands” (kug-bi “u-a...si-(g): e.g.
Steinkeller 63), has the same function. They are alternatives to the
completion clause “he (buyer) has completed this transaction” (inim-
bi.. .til; e.g., Steinkeller 91) that in a slightly modified form becomes
standard in contracts of later periods.^1077.1.3 Delivery
Some documents contain a clause, unique to this period, making
separate mention of the fact that the seller has delivered the object
of sale to the buyer, sometimes before witnesses (e.g., Steinkeller 11).
Transfer of possession, therefore, could be separate from transfer of
ownership.^108 Indeed, the trial reports attest to cases of deferred deliv-
ery, especially of slaves, who could remain many years with the seller
(NG 65, 68, 69, 212:11–14). In Steinkeller 17, the envelope states
that a slave has been bought, but the tablet reveals that he has not
yet been delivered. A promissory oath was used to secure delivery
by a fixed date (Steinkeller S. 2; NG 131). Failure to deliver gave
the buyer several possible remedies: return of the price (Steinkeller
S.4), compensation for the lost hire of a slave (NG 65), a replacement
slave (plus?) compensation for hire (NG 70, where the seller sold the
slave abroad), or a fixed sum stipulated by the oath (NG 131).
In sales of slaves (and possibly animals), a special clause sometimes
states that the seller has caused the slave “to cross over the stick/
pestle” (gi“-gana...bala: e.g. Steinkeller 41, 87, 128). The clause is
known from earlier periods and continues into the Old Babylonian
period.^109 It is mutually exclusive with the transfer clause above,
which suggests that the ceremony had the same purpose: it trans-
ferred possession (as opposed to ownership) in creatures that could
move of their own volition.(^107) See Sale.. ., 32–33.
(^108) The verb is sum (“give”); Steinkeller in his discussion of the clause (Sale...,
42–43) casts the net too wide in including clauses using the verb “buy” (sa 10 ). The
whole point is that purchase and delivery are not synonymous. The verb gin (“make
firm”) might refer to transfer of possession, but could mean completion of title: see
Steinkeller 125; NG 63.
(^109) Steinkeller, Sale.. ., 34–42; Malul, “The bukannum-clause...”
- ( ) 211
WESTBROOK_F5_182-226 8/27/03 1:42 PM Page 211