1 cadwaller and co. v. smith, bell and co b2016

Author: Des Ico Cadwaller and Co. vs Smith, Bell and Co. (1907) Petition: appeal Petitioner: Cadwaller and Co. Respondent: SBC and Peabody and Co. Ponencia: Tracey DOCTRINE: Upon annulment, due to breach, the parties should be restored to their original position by mutual restitution. FACTS: 1. Pet, as assignee of Pacific Export Lumber Company (PELC) sues for $3486 which is the difference between the amount turned over to the company on account of the cedar piles and the amount actually received by them on the subsequent sale thereof. 2. PELC shipped 581 piles to Peabody and Co. wherein the latter was to receive a commission of ½ of whatever sum was obtained over $15 for each pile and 5% of the price of piles sold after storage. 3. Peabody wrote to PELC that for lack of demand it could only be sold at less than $15 a piece 4. Price then fixed and accepted by PELC to be at $12 5. However, it appeared that Peabody had negotiations with Insular Purchasing Agent for the sale of piles at $20 a piece, and that 213 piles were already sold to the Government for $19 each. Others were sold at varying price. 6. Smith, Bell and Co. was associated with Peabody and was the one who conducted the negotiations. ISSUES: 1. WON the contract of sale is annullable PROVISION: Article 1398 of NCC RULING + RATIO: 1. YES - There is a breach of duty. - Contract of sale induced was founded on the respondent’s fraud and subject to annulment by the aggrieved party. - Upon annulment the parties should be restored to their original position. - Resp not entitled to retain their commission but in respect to the 213 piles, their commission be allowed (sold at the time of the making of the contract) - It cannot also be concluded that the pets have suffered positive and actual damages in their rights and interests as a result of the execution of said document. Should be returned to defendant: - Lower court: 9,861.28 pesos * minus the commission, times the interest rate - Supreme court: 9,083.96 pesos * decrease lower court’s estimation of amount DISPOSITION: CFI Judgment Modified

Upload: marc-virtucio

Post on 09-Sep-2015

225 views

Category:

Documents

7 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

1 Cadwaller and Co. v. Smith, Bell and Co B2016

TRANSCRIPT

[Type text][Type text][Type text]

Author: Des IcoCadwaller and Co. vs Smith, Bell and Co. (1907)

Petition: appealPetitioner: Cadwaller and Co.Respondent: SBC and Peabody and Co.Ponencia: Tracey

DOCTRINE: Upon annulment, due to breach, the parties should be restored to their original position by mutual restitution.

FACTS:

1. Pet, as assignee of Pacific Export Lumber Company (PELC) sues for $3486 which is the difference between the amount turned over to the company on account of the cedar piles and the amount actually received by them on the subsequent sale thereof.

2. PELC shipped 581 piles to Peabody and Co. wherein the latter was to receive a commission of of whatever sum was obtained over $15 for each pile and 5% of the price of piles sold after storage.

3. Peabody wrote to PELC that for lack of demand it could only be sold at less than $15 a piece

4. Price then fixed and accepted by PELC to be at $12

5. However, it appeared that Peabody had negotiations with Insular Purchasing Agent for the sale of piles at $20 a piece, and that 213 piles were already sold to the Government for $19 each. Others were sold at varying price.

6. Smith, Bell and Co. was associated with Peabody and was the one who conducted the negotiations.

ISSUES:1. WON the contract of sale is annullable

PROVISION: Article 1398 of NCC

RULING + RATIO:1. YES There is a breach of duty.

Contract of sale induced was founded on the respondents fraud and subject to annulment by the aggrieved party.

Upon annulment the parties should be restored to their original position.

Resp not entitled to retain their commission but in respect to the 213 piles, their commission be allowed (sold at the time of the making of the contract)

It cannot also be concluded that the pets have suffered positive and actual damages in their rights and interests as a result of the execution of said document.

Should be returned to defendant: Lower court: 9,861.28 pesos* minus the commission, times the interest rate

Supreme court: 9,083.96 pesos* decrease lower courts estimation of amount

DISPOSITION: CFI Judgment Modified

ZTE B2016 Quick Start Guide

Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co

United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224 (1897)

Packard Bell EasyNote LS - CNET Contentcdn.cnetcontent.com/36/f9/36f9a22b-1b52-47fd-928e-35941e971be6.pdf · • Membership in the Packard Bell co mmunity: receive promotions and

Engaging with students as co-creators of employability resources Diane Bell

BELL CREEK FIELD PROJECT€¦ · BELL CREEK FIELD PROJECT – PLAINS CO 2 REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP DE-FC26-05NT42592 Charles Gorecki Energy & Environmental Research Center. U.S. Department

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES CENTERS APD REGIONAL … Cares B2016.pdf · DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES CENTERS Some people with developmental disabilities receive services and supports

Multi-Frequency Observations of the Gravitational Lens B2016+112 Anupreeta More Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn Supervisor : Richard Porcas

New TACO BELL NATIONAL PURCHASING CO-OP, INC. Membership … · 2014. 3. 20. · TACO BELL NATIONAL PURCHASING CO-OP, INC. Membership Information Packet. June 30, 2009. We are offering: