Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Government vs. Frank Ed

    Uploaded by

    Vince Llamazares Lupango
    818 views1 page
    The case involved a breach of contract claim brought by the Government of the Philippine Islands against George Frank. Frank had entered into a two-year employment contract in Chicago to work as a stenographer, which included provisions for salary and travel expenses. However, Frank left the employment after arriving in Manila. Frank argued he was a minor under Philippine law at the time, but the court rejected this defense since he was an adult under the laws of Illinois where the contract was executed. The court held that matters regarding the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are governed by the law of the place where the contract is made.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    27. Government vs. Frank Ed

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involved a breach of contract claim brought by the Government of the Philippine Islands against George Frank. Frank had entered into a two-year employment contract in Chicago to work as a stenographer, which included provisions for salary and travel expenses. However, Frank left the employment after arriving in Manila. Frank argued he was a minor under Philippine law at the time, but the court rejected this defense since he was an adult under the laws of Illinois where the contract was executed. The court held that matters regarding the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are governed by the law of the place where the contract is made.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    818 views1 page

    Government vs. Frank Ed

    Uploaded by

    Vince Llamazares Lupango
    The case involved a breach of contract claim brought by the Government of the Philippine Islands against George Frank. Frank had entered into a two-year employment contract in Chicago to work as a stenographer, which included provisions for salary and travel expenses. However, Frank left the employment after arriving in Manila. Frank argued he was a minor under Philippine law at the time, but the court rejected this defense since he was an adult under the laws of Illinois where the contract was executed. The court held that matters regarding the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are governed by the law of the place where the contract is made.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MATTERS BEARING UPON THE EXECUTION, INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF A

    CONTRACT ARE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CONTRACT IS
    MADE
    Matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by
    the law of the place where the contract is made. Matters connected with its performance are
    regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting a remedy,
    such as the bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon
    the law of the place where the suit is brought. (The Government of the Philippine Islands vs.
    George Frank. G.R. No. L-2935, March 23, 1909)

    x—————x
    MATTERS BEARING UPON THE EXECUTION, INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF A
    CONTRACT ARE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CONTRACT IS
    MADE

    The Government of the Philippine Islands vs. George Frank


    G.R. No. L-2935, March 23, 1909
    Johnson, J.

    FACTS:
    The case seeks a reversal of the judgment of the lower court finding George Frank liable for sum of
    money after a breach of contract of service as stenographer.

    In 1903, in Chicago, USA, the defendant entered into a contract for a period of two years with
    the plaintiff for which the former is hired as a stenographer. The parties agreed to a salary of 1,200
    dollars per year and in addition, payment of expenses incurred in traveling from the said city of
    Chicago to Manila, and the one-half salary during said period of travel. However, in 1904, the
    defendant left the service of the plaintiff and refused to make a further compliance with the
    terms of the contract.

    The plaintiff commenced an action in the CFI of the city of Manila to recover from the
    defendant the amount the plaintiff claimed had been paid to the defendant as expenses
    incurred in traveling from Chicago to Manila, and as half salary for the period consumed in
    travel. The defendant alleged in his special defense that he was a minor and therefore the
    contract could not be enforced against him. The plaintiff claims that, by reason of the fact that,
    under the laws of the Philippine Islands at the time the contract was made, male persons in
    said Islands did not reach their majority until they had attained the age of 23 years, hence, he
    was not liable under said contract, contending that the laws of the Philippine Islands governed.

    ISSUE:
    Is the contention of the defendant that he was a minor when he entered into the contract
    tenable?

    HELD:
    NO. The defendant being fully qualified to enter into the contract at the place and time the
    contract was made, he cannot plead infancy as a defense at the place where the contract is
    being enforced. The record discloses that, at the time the contract was entered into in the
    State of Illinois, he was an adult under the laws of that State and had full authority to
    contract. It is not disputed—upon the contrary the fact is admitted—that at the time and place
    of the making of the contract in question the defendant had full capacity to make the same.
    No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation
    and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made.
    Matters connected with its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of
    performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as the bringing of suit, admissibility of
    evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place where the suit is
    brought.

    You might also like