Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Obq 7 - Clrii

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Dimla
    Michael paid P10,000 as downpayment for a property he was leasing from Jonathan. However, Jonathan claims they did not have a perfected contract of sale because there was no meeting of the minds on the payment terms. As Michael's lawyer, you would argue the P10,000 payment constituted earnest money and perfected the contract. However, as Jonathan's lawyer, you would argue no contract existed since payment terms were not agreed upon, as established in case law. As the court, the issues are whether a sale was consummated, and whether Michael's failure to pay the full downpayment allowed rescission. The court resolves that no sale was perfected since payment terms were not established, and Jonathan could

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Obq 7 - Clrii

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Dimla
    80 views4 pages
    Michael paid P10,000 as downpayment for a property he was leasing from Jonathan. However, Jonathan claims they did not have a perfected contract of sale because there was no meeting of the minds on the payment terms. As Michael's lawyer, you would argue the P10,000 payment constituted earnest money and perfected the contract. However, as Jonathan's lawyer, you would argue no contract existed since payment terms were not agreed upon, as established in case law. As the court, the issues are whether a sale was consummated, and whether Michael's failure to pay the full downpayment allowed rescission. The court resolves that no sale was perfected since payment terms were not established, and Jonathan could

    Original Description:

    CIV

    Original Title

    OBQ 7 - CLRII

    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
    Michael paid P10,000 as downpayment for a property he was leasing from Jonathan. However, Jonathan claims they did not have a perfected contract of sale because there was no meeting of the minds on the payment terms. As Michael's lawyer, you would argue the P10,000 payment constituted earnest money and perfected the contract. However, as Jonathan's lawyer, you would argue no contract existed since payment terms were not agreed upon, as established in case law. As the court, the issues are whether a sale was consummated, and whether Michael's failure to pay the full downpayment allowed rescission. The court resolves that no sale was perfected since payment terms were not established, and Jonathan could

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views4 pages

    Obq 7 - Clrii

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Dimla
    Michael paid P10,000 as downpayment for a property he was leasing from Jonathan. However, Jonathan claims they did not have a perfected contract of sale because there was no meeting of the minds on the payment terms. As Michael's lawyer, you would argue the P10,000 payment constituted earnest money and perfected the contract. However, as Jonathan's lawyer, you would argue no contract existed since payment terms were not agreed upon, as established in case law. As the court, the issues are whether a sale was consummated, and whether Michael's failure to pay the full downpayment allowed rescission. The court resolves that no sale was perfected since payment terms were not established, and Jonathan could

    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 4

    OBQ 7 – CLR 2

    1.) Mars was a frequent passenger of CEBU PACIFIC. He travelled


    from Cebu to Butuan for a case bringing his luggage that contained
    his documents for the case. It was loaded on to the wrong plane.
    Mars demanded the return of his luggage and Cebu Pacific
    complied. It was delivered to him the next day but Mars claimed
    that the bag had been opened and his case documents missing.

    A. You are the lawyer of Mars. What would your causes of action
    be? 

    As the counsel of Mars, the proper cause of action to be invoked is that there
    was a breach of contract of transportation and gross negligence for failure to
    observe the due care that is expected of a common carrier. I would sue Cebu
    Pacific in order to recover damages incurred for the missing documents. 

    In this case, a contract of necessary deposit existed between Mars and Cebu
    Pacific. A deposit is considered necessary when it is made between
    passengers and common carriers. As a common carrier, Cebu Pacific is
    expected to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods
    and the safety of the passengers transported by them as it is in the nature of
    their business and for reasons of public policy as found under Article 1733 of
    the New Civil Code

    In this case, Mars can sue to recover the damages incurred for the lost
    documents inside the bag, which he wouldn’t have lost if Cebu Pacific
    exercised extraordinary diligence in making sure that the bag was loaded on
    the correct plane. 

    B. You are the lawyer of Cebu Pacific. What would your defenses be?

    Answer: As the counsel now for Cebu Pacific, I would raise good faith as a
    defense as there was no proof indicative of the airline’s bad faith.

    Liability of Cebu Pacific is only limited  to the payment of the baggage


    liability assumed by it under the condition of carriage printed at the back of
    the ticket. Contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready-made
    form of contract on the other, as the plane ticket in the case at bar, are
    contracts not entirely prohibited. As ruled on the similar case of Ong Yiu v.
    Court of Appeals, the one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to
    reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.

    Bad faith means a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest
    or ill will. It was the duty of Cebu Pacific to look for petitioner's luggage which
    had been miscarried. PAL exerted due diligence in complying with such duty.
    I would also raise the defense that there was absence of  wrongful act or
    omission or of fraud or bad faith which would entitle Mars to Moral Damages.
    In addition, Mars is neither entitled to exemplary damages. In contracts, as
    provided for in Article 2232 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages can be
    granted if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive,
    or malevolent manner, which has not been proven in this case.

    2.) Michael claimed that on November 29, 2018, he and Jonathan


    entered into a contract of sale of land for P100,000. The payment
    terms would be a down payment of P10,000 and 20,000 and the
    P70,000 is payable in installment. 

    Michael then paid the P10,000 down payment on November 29,


    2018. On January 8, 2020, he tried to pay the next P20,000, but
    Jonathan refused to accept and execute a deed of sale. 

    On the other hand, Jonathan claimed that no contract of sale was


    perfected because the minds of the parties did not meet. He said
    that Michael had been leasing the property for 2 years. Jonathan
    said he did indicate his willingness to sell the property for 100,000,
    but under the terms of P30,000 down payment, 20,000 of which to
    be paid on November 30, 2018 and the remaining 70,000 is payable
    in 10 years with 12% interest per annum. On November 29, 2018,
    Michael paid 10,000, short of the alleged 30,000 agreed down
    payment. While Jonathan accepted the payment, he did so with the
    thought that the remaining P20,000 would immediately follow. So,
    when Michael tendered the 20,000, he refused to accept, because
    he considered the contract rescinded on the account of the former’s
    failure to complete the down payment on or before December 31,
    2018.

    A. You are the lawyer of Michael, what are your courses of action?  

    Michael can contend that his initial payment of the P10,000.00 can already
    be considered as earnest money. An earnest money is a deposit made to a
    seller that represents a buyer's good faith to purchase the object of the
    contract, which in this case is a piece of land. 

    The main purpose of the earnest money is to bind the bargain. It is also
    considered as part of the purchase price and will be deducted from the total
    price. Once the earnest money is given to the seller, it will perfect the
    contract of sale. A payment will only be considered earnest money if it
    constitutes as part of the purchase price. 
    As can be seen from the case, the said initial payment is assumed to be part
    of the purchase price, and as such, Michael can contend that there is now a
    perfected contract due to the payment of earnest money.

    B. You are the lawyer of Jonathan, what are your defenses?

    There was no perfected contract as the minds of the parties did not meet “in
    regard to the manner of payment.”

    In the case of Velasco v CA, the Court ruled that a definite agreement on the
    manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element in the
    formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale.

     The fact petitioner delivered to the respondent the sum of P10,000 as part
    of the down-payment that they had to pay cannot be considered as sufficient
    proof of the perfection of any purchase and sale agreement between the
    parties as the terms of the contract had not been agreed upon by the
    parties. Hence, no perfected contract between them.

    C. You are the court, what are the issues?


    1.) Whether or not the sale was consummated; and

    No, the sale was not consummated. The manner of payment of purchase
    price goes into as an essential element in the formation of a binding contract
    of sale. As provided in the case of Velasco v. CA, the Court ruled that no
    contract of sale was perfected because the meeting of the minds didnt meet
    in regard to the manner of payment. Applying it in this case, as it can be
    shown in the facts that there was no agreement made with regard to the
    manner of payment, such defect goes into the element of price to support a
    valid contract of sale. Thus, there was no consummated sale 
     
    2.) Whether or not Michael’s failure to complete the downpayment can
    warrant the rescission of the contract by Jonathan

    D. Resolve the issues.

    1.) No, the sale was not consummated. Article 1475. The contract of sale is
    perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is
    the object of the contract and upon the price.

    The material averments contained in the petitioners' complaint themselves


    disclosed a lack of complete agreement in regard to the manner of payment
    of the lot in question. A definite agreement on the manner of payment of the
    purchase price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and
    enforceable contract of sale. The fact, therefore, that the petitioners
    delivered to the respondent the sum of P10,000 as part of the down-payment
    that they had to pay cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the
    perfection of any purchase and sale agreement between the parties.

    2.) Yes, Jonathan has the right to rescind the contract as the inability to form
    a concrete agreement on how the down payment should be paid is clear
    proof that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties. As
    found under Art. 1475 of the New Civil Code states “The contract of sale is
    perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is
    the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties
    may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law
    governing the form of contracts.”

    In this case, Jonathan and Michael failed to reach a meeting of the minds
    with regards to the manner of payment as shown by their conflicting claims
    on how the initial P30,000.00 was going to be paid. Hence, Jonathan may still
    rescind the contract as there was no perfected contract of sale entered by
    the parties.

    You might also like