Business LAW ( Obligations AND Contract PDF

Preview

Summary

ASSIGNMENT: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF OBLIGATIONSNAME: Parel Kyle Ceasar B. COURSE: BSBA II Instruction: Explain or state briefly the rule (based on the Civil Code) or reason for your answers. State the articles (e. Accdg to Art 1156 , etc.) you used in answering each problem.1. X saw at about one (1:00...

Description

ASSIGNMENT: GENERAL PROVISIONS OF OBLIGATIONS NAME: Parel Kyle Ceasar B. COURSE: BSBA II Instruction: Explain or state briefly the rule (based on the Civil Code) or reason for your answers. State the articles (e.g. Accdg to Art 1156 , etc.) you used in answering each problem. 1. X saw at about one (1:00 pm) in the afternoon a child alone in a shopping mall. The child who strayed from Y, his mother, was in tears and appeared very hungry. Out of pity, X took him to a restaurant to eat for which he spent P150. Y did not give her consent to the good deed of X. Furthermore, they were on their way home before the child got lost. Is X entitled to be reimbursed by Y for the amount of P150? A: Under Negotiorum Gestio, Article 1157, Quasi- contracts, when a person voluntarily took care of someone’s property even without the owner’s consent, the owner is still obliged to reimburse the person who managed his property for the expenses incurred. In the given situation, X became the gestor of Y’s property, her child, while she’s away. X noticed that the child was crying and alone, without Y’s consent, X took care of the child and spent P150. In this case Y have the obligation to repay the useful expenses( P150 ) that X used for taking care of her child.

2. While the car of X was parked by the roadside, it was bumped at the rear by a jeep belonging to Y. Only the car of X suffered damage. Under the circumstances, does it follow that Y is liable to X for damage? A: Base on the elements of negligence, Quasi-delicts, the defendant is the one who’s faulty, while the plaintiff was the one who suffered damage. In this case X is the one who received damage but also the one who’s faulty, because he violated the law by parking his car just by the roadside. Y cannot be liable and can be the plaintiff and complain about X’s violation. In conclusion X is the one who is liable for the damage he received. ( Accdg to Art. 1157)

3. In the same problem, has X the right to ask indemnity from R, employer of X, on the ground that when the accident occurred X was on his way to transact business with the client of R? A: Based on Art. 1157, Quasi-delicts, Indemnification for consequential damages, should be reasoned or caused by crime or negligence, in the given situation, there is no crime neither negligence caused by R, X has no right to ask indemnity from R because R’s said contribution to the accident is not valid for him to give indemnity.

4. D (debtor) borrowed P10,000 from C (creditor). On the due date of the loan, D could not pay C because he lost to a robber the P10,000 intended for C. In addition, he suffered financial reverses, and he was short of cash even for his current family’s needs. Is D legally justified to refuse to pay C? A: The answer for the problem depends on the situation, there are two situations possible, it is if where D borrowed the money. Situation 1 If D borrowed the money from the bank, or from lending corps, D can’t be legally justified to refuse the payment, because C or the bank or company where D borrowed money have no obligations for what happened or happening to D. Anything that hinders D from paying is no

longer the problem of C. Situation 2

If D borrowed the money from his friends or someone else that he personally knows, maybe he can demand for additional day or time for him to make the payment. But if after the additional date or time given and D still did not pay, C can sue D in court to demand the performance of the debtor’s obligation.

ASSIGNMENT: NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATIONS NAME: Parel, Kyle Ceasar B. COURSE: BSBA II Instruction: Explain or state briefly the rule (based on the Civil Code) or reason for your answers. State the articles (e.g. Accdg to Art 1156 , etc.) you used in answering each problem. 1. S (seller) sold to B (buyer) on July 5, a horse named Silver to be delivered on July 20. However, on July 15, S sold again and delivered the horse to T. Who has a better right to Silver? A: In this case the thing is a determinate or specific because it is said that the horse Silver, only Silver will be delivered on July 20, Buyer B has the better right to Silver than buyer T. Because seller S already has an obligation to B before S and T’s transaction with the same determinate thing happened. S is already obliged to take care of Silver for delivery to B but then he sold Silver to T (another buyer), that action makes S, the seller, guilty for incidental fraud, and is liable for delay or damages. And that is also why T can't have a better right to Silver because the transaction made between is fruit of fraud. On the other hand, B has his rights as a creditor to compel for the performance of seller’s obligation. And S cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one, unless there is a consent or agreement with the creditor. Based on these articles; Art. 1165,par.1: When what is to be delivered is a determinate thing, the creditor, in addition to the right granted him by Article 1170, may compel the debtor to make the delivery. Art. 1165, par.3: If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery. Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. (1101) General rule in obligations to do (or not to do): The debtor must perform the act as promised and cannot substitute the same with another act of forbearance, unless of course with the consent of the creditor or in case the obligation is facultative. (Art.1244, par.2) 2. S sold to B a specific refrigerator which is S agreed to deliver not later than July 31, S did not deliver the refrigerator on the said date. Is S guilty of legal delay? A: S is guilty of legal delay because the agreement was dated to be delivered not later than July 31, there is already a demand from B but the debtor failed to fulfill the demand of B on the given date.

3. S promised to deliver to B a female horse named Suzie on July 10. Suzie gave birth to a colt on July 5. 1. What are the obligations of S? A: To perform the obligation specifically To take care of the thing before delivery. (Art. 1163) To deliver the fruits of the thing. (Art. 1164) 2. Who has a right to the colt? A: B have the right to ask S for the delivery of Suzie and the colt, but the ownership is still into S. B will only have a right of ownership once the thing and its fruits is being delivered. 3. Who is the lawful owner of Suzie in case it was sold and delivered by S to T on July 8?

A: If B has already made payment to S before July 8 and just waiting for its delivery then B is the lawful owner of Suzie.

ASSIGNMENT: NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATIONS PART 2 Instruction: Explain or state briefly the rule (based on the Civil Code) or reason for your answers. State the articles (e.g. Accdg to Art 1156 , etc) you used in answering each problem. Case 1: This is an action for damages for alleged breach of contract. Nicolas L. Cuenca, then Commissioner for Public Highways of the Republic of the Philippines filed a case against Northwest Airlines, Inc. The facts reveal that Mr. Cuenca boarded Northwest Airlines in Manila with a first class ticket to Tokyo. Upon arrival at Okinawa, Mr. Cuenca was transferred to the tourist class compartment. Although he revealed that he was traveling in his official capacity as official delegate of the Republic to a conference in Tokyo, an agent of Northwest Airlines rudely compelled him, in the presence of other passengers, to move, over his objection, to the tourist class, under threat of otherwise leaving him in Okinawa. In order to reach the conference on time, respondent had no choice but to obey. Is Mr. Cuenca entitled to damages for culpa contractual? Legal Opinion 1: In this case, the creditor, Mr. Cuenca who demanded and was given a privilege of a contract from Northwest Airline, failed to receive the performance of obligation from one of their agent. In the situation, the agent should’ve asked Mr. Cuenca to show his first class ticket but then he just rudely compelled the creditor to move, which is not a proper way to treat a passenger. By the act of the employee or the agent who failed to perform the obligation, as well as his manager, are liable for the damages that Mr. Cuenca received. Based in Art. 1173, failing a performance of obligation under a pre-existing contract is a negligence under culpa contractual. Though Mr. Cuenca at that moment didn’t had a choice but to obey the error made by the agent, he can still complain for the failure, maybe by asking and calling the company's hotline and tell them about their agent’s negligence. Case 2: Mr. Rafael Carrascoso is a civil engineer who was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958. On March 28, 1958, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to Mr. Carrascoso a 'first class' round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, Mr. Carrascoso traveled in 'first class', but at Bangkok, the Manager of the Air France airline forced him to vacate the 'first class' seat that he was occupying because there was a 'white man', who, the Manager alleged, had a 'better right to the seat.‘ When asked to vacate his 'first class' seat, Mr. Carrascoso, as was to be expected, refused. A commotion ensued but Mr. Carrascoso reluctantly gave his 'first class' seat in the plane." In its defense, Air France alleged that although Mr. Carrascoso was issued a first-class ticket, it was no guarantee that the passenger to whom the same had been issued would be accommodated in the first-class compartment, for the passenger has yet to make arrangements upon arrival at every station for the necessary first class reservation. Is Mr. Carrascoso entitled to the first-class‘ seat? entitled to damages?

Is Mr. Carrascoso

Legal Opinion 2: In this case, Mr. Carasscoso who was said that have a first class seat ticket on a flight issued by Philippine Air Line, a round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. Unfortunately upon arriving to Bangkok, he was not informed that upon arrival at every

station he needs to make an arrangement for the necessary first class reservation. I conclude that the said “white man” made an arrangement and had a reservation for the seat, so it is truly, that he, the white man, has a better right to the seat. While Mr.

Carrascoso who have a first class ticket, unknowingly went to that seat without an arrangement for reservation. Based on Art 1173, The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. par. 2, If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. This article enters on the part where Philippine airline didn’t inform Mr. Carasscoso about the diligence he need to perform for the obligation to be fulfilled, which is the reason why Mr. Carrascoso is entitled for damages.

ASSIGNMENT: DIFFERENT KINDS OF OBLIGATIONS PART 1: Instruction: Explain or state briefly the rule (based on the Civil Code) or reason for your answers. State the articles (e.g. Accdg to Art 1156 , etc) you used in answering each problem. 1. D (debtor) borrowed P20,000 fromC (creditor) payable on or before August 30. Before the arrival of the due date, C agreed to the promise of B to pay Cif B wants. Can C insist that B pay not later than August 30?

Answer: No, C can’t compel B to pay not later than the said date and he cannot compel him to pay either, because B said that he will pay C only if he want. The condition of B is a Casual Condition, type of condition which where the obligation depends on the will of a third party. And in addition, that conditional obligation is void. 2. Suppose in the same problem, D obliges himself to pay C P10,000 after C paid his obligation to T. Is the obligation valid?

Answer: Based on Art. 727, Illegal or impossible conditions in simple and remuneratory donations shall not be imposed. Then I conclude that obligation is valid because the condition doesn’t violate any law and is not impossible.

3. S (seller) agreed to sell B (buyer) a specific car for P200,000, delivery of the car and the payment of the price to be made on June 15. Suppose S delivered the car on June 15 but B failed to pay the price, what are the remedies of S?

Answer: The seller can compel B for the exact fulfillment of the obligation with his right for the damages caused by the delay of B. In this case, S already fulfilled his obligation which is to deliver the specific car to be paid by B. By not being able to pay, B now became the debtor, and the creditor now is S. If B can’t pay the full payment then C can compel a partial payment, but if after compelling B for the payment for the car and still B cannot pay, the best remedy that S can do is to redeem or get the car back, In that case the liabilities of B was lessen because he will no longer pay for the car but still liable and should pay just for the damages he caused. 4. D binds himself to give P10,000 to C upon the death of the father of D. Is the obligation of D conditional or one with a period?

Answer: The obligation of D is an obligation with a period because the event he gave which is “upon the death of the father of D” can certainly happen in the future.

5. D borrowed P10,000 from C at 15% interest per annum payable on December

31. Can D require C to accept payment before December 31? Answer:

Yes, D can ask C to accept payment before the said date, but D is wrong if he assumes that paying before the period will not include the interest. Even if he already used the money for almost a year or not he must provide the payment with it’s interest. D can ask C’ consent to accept his payment including the interest before the period. (Art.1196)

6. S sold his TV set to B who gave S the option to deliver instead of his refrigerator. Is S liable to B in case the TV is lost through S’s fault?

Answer: S, because of his negligence, is liable to B for the damages. (Art. 1170). Also, based on Art. 1163, he failed to take care of the thing before the delivery. S can demand for the damages or have a remedy which is to get the refrigerator instead.

ASSIGNMENT: DIFFERENT KINDS OF OBLIGATIONS PART 2 Instruction: Explain or state briefly the rule (based on the Civil Code) or reason for your answers. State the articles (e.g. Accdg to Art 1156 , etc) you used in answering each problem. Case: On January 30, 1911, a firm known as JR & Company, engaged in a retail garment business, found itself in such difficult financial condition that its creditors, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Fox, together with many others, agreed to take over the business, incorporate it and accept stocks therein in payment of their respective credits. When this was done, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Fox became the two largest stockholders in the new corporation called JR & Co., Incorporated. A few days after the incorporation was completed, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Fox entered into the following agreement: "Whereas the undersigned are, respectively, owners of large amounts of stock in JR & Co., Inc.; and, "Whereas it is recognized that the success of said corporation depends, now and for at least one year net following, in the larger stockholders retaining their respective interests in the business of said corporation: "Therefore, the undersigned mutually and reciprocally agree not to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any part of their present holdings of stock in said JR & Co., Inc., until after one year from the date hereof. "Either party violating this agreement shall pay the other the sum of one thousand (P1,000) pesos as liquidated damages, unless previous consent in writing to such sale, transfer, or other disposition be obtained." Notwithstanding this contract, Mr. Fox on October 19, 1911, sold his stock in the said corporation to E. D. McCullough of the firm of E. C. McCullough & Co. of Manila, a strong competitor of the said JR & Co., Inc. This sale was made by Mr. Fox against the protest of Mr. Lambert and with the warning that he would be held liable under the contract hereinabove set forth and in accordance with its terms. Is Mr. Lambert entitled to the liquidated damages in the amount of P1,000.00? Legal Opinion: No, the liquidated damages in the amount of P1,000.00 shall be paid by Mr. Fox by violating the agreement. Mr. Fox is entitled to the payment of liquidated damages, not Mr. Lambert. And Mr. Lambert can enforce the payment of the liquidated damages whether he suffered damages or not. (Accdg to Art. 1128) Because it is also stated on the agreement that “Either party violating this agreement shall pay the other the sum of one thousand (P1,000) pesos as liquidated damages”. The obligation for the payment arises after the agreement being violated, even without causing damage to Mr. Lambert. But if the violation caused damage, Mr. Lambert cannot recover more than the sum of one thousand pesos even if he proves that the amount of damages exceeds the fixed price.

ASSIGNMENT: EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS PART 2 Instruction: Explain or state briefly the rule (based on the Civil Code) or reason for your answers. State the articles (e.g. Accdg to Art 1156 , etc) you used in answering each problem. 1. X obliged himself to deliver to Y a specific carabao to Y on July 31. The carabao died on July 25. Y has no proof that X was negligent. Is X liable to Y? Answer: Yes, according to Article 1265, “Whenever the thing is lost in the possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the loss was due to his fault, unless there is proof to the contrary.” In this case, it was in his possession when the specific carabao died and it is his duty to take care of the carabao for delivery, it was presumed that it was the debtor's fault even though Y were not able to show proof that X was negligent, unless he proves the contrary to the presumption of Y.

2. X obliges himself to deliver a specific thing to Y on a certain date. The thing was lost by X without his fault and before he incurred in delay. Does it mean that X is already exempt from liability? Answer: According to Article 1262, “The debtor in obligation to do shall also be released when the prestation become legally or physically impossible without the fault of the obligor.” In this case, since the determinate thing was lost without his fault and he has not yet incurred delay, then X is already exempt from liability. 3. Suppose in the preceding problem, the thing was lost through the fault of Z, a third person. State the effect of the loss as far as X, Y, and Z are concerned. Answer: According to Article 1269, “the creditor shall have the all the rights of action which the debtor may have against third persons by reason of the loss.” In this case, the obligation of X will be extinguished and he will not be liable, but he cannot go after Z also. But, Y, the creditor, have the right to bring an action against Z the person which is faulty for the loss.

4. D (debtor) borrowed money from C (creditor) evidenced by a promissory note signed by D. What presumption arises if the promissory note is voluntarily given by C to D? Answer: The debt must have been paid by D if the promissory note is voluntarily delivered to D. 5. A, B and C are jointly liable to D in the amount of P15,000. Subsequently, D assigned his credit to C in consideration for goods sold by C to D. Give the effect of the assignment. Answer:

6. D borrowed P50,000 as a character loan (no security) from a bank. Despite demands for payment after the loan fell due, D did not pay the bank. D has a savings deposit of P40,000 with the bank. Does the bank have the right to apply the deposit to the paymen...