arrieta v. naric

ARRIETA VS. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATIONGR L-15645 January 31, 1964 Regala, J. FACTS: On May 19, 1952, plaintiff-appellee Mrs. Paz Arrieta participated in a public biddingcalled by NARIC for the supply of 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice. As her bid of$203.00 per metric ton was the lowest, she was awarded she contract for the same. OnJuly 1, 1952,Arrieta and NARIC entered into Contract of Sale of Rice under the termof which the former obligated herself to deliver to the latter 20,000 metric tons ofBurmese rice at $203.00 per metric ton. In turn, NARIC committed itself to pay forthe imported rice“by means of an irrevocable,confirmed and assignable letter ofc redit in US currency in favor of Arrieta and/or supplier in Burma, immediately.” However, it was only on July 30, 1952 that NARIC took the first step to open a letterof credit by forwarding to the PNB its application for Commercial Letter of Credit. On the same day, Arrieta, thru counsel, advised NARIC ofthe extreme necessity for theopening of the letter of credit since she had by then made a tender to her supplier inRangoon, Burma equivalent to 5% of the F.O.B. price of 20, 000 tons at $180.70 andin compliance with the regulations in Rangoon, this 5% will be confiscated if therequired letter of credit is not received by them before August 4, 1952.On August 4,PNB informed NARIC that its application for a letter of credit has been approved bythe Board of Directors with the condition that 50% marginal cash deposit be paid andthat drafts to be paid upon presentment. It turned out that NARIC was not in financial position to meet the condition. As a result of the delay, the allocation of Arrieta’s supplier in Rangoon was cancelled and the 5% deposit amounting to 524 kyats orapproximately P200,000 was forfeited. ISSUE: Was NARIC liable for damages? RULING: Yes. One who assumes a contractual obligation and fails to perform the same on account of his inability to meet certain bank which inability he knew and was aware of when he entered into contract, should be held liable in damages for breach of contract. Under

Upload: mark-recare

Post on 25-Dec-2015

35 views

Category:

Documents

5 download

Report

Download

Tags:

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

Obligation and Contracts cases

TRANSCRIPT

ARRIETA VS. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATIONGR L-15645 January 31, 1964

Regala, J.

FACTS:On May 19, 1952, plaintiff-appellee Mrs. Paz Arrieta participated in a

public biddingcalled by NARIC for the supply of 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice. As her bid of$203.00 per metric ton was the lowest, she was awarded she contract for the same. OnJuly 1, 1952,Arrieta and NARIC entered into Contract of Sale of Rice under the termof which the former obligated herself to deliver to the latter 20,000 metric tons ofBurmese rice at $203.00 per metric ton. In turn, NARIC committed itself to pay forthe imported rice“by means of an irrevocable,confirmed and assignable letter ofcredit in US currency in favor of Arrieta and/or supplier in Burma, immediately.”

However, it was only on July 30, 1952 that NARIC took the first step to open a letterof credit by forwarding to the PNB its application for Commercial Letter of Credit. On the same day, Arrieta, thru counsel, advised NARIC ofthe extreme necessity for theopening of the letter of credit since she had by then made a tender to her supplier inRangoon, Burma equivalent to 5% of the F.O.B. price of 20, 000 tons at $180.70 andin compliance with the regulations in Rangoon, this 5% will be confiscated if therequired letter of credit is not received by them before August 4, 1952.On August 4,PNB informed NARIC that its application for a letter of credit has been approved bythe Board of Directors with the condition that 50% marginal cash deposit be paid andthat drafts to be paid upon presentment. It turned out that NARIC was not in financial position to meet the condition. As a result of the delay, the allocation of Arrieta’s supplier in Rangoon was cancelled and the 5% deposit amounting to 524 kyats orapproximately P200,000 was forfeited.

ISSUE: Was NARIC liable for damages?

RULING:Yes. One who assumes a contractual obligation and fails to perform the same on account of his inability to meet certain bank which inability he knew and was aware of when he entered into contract, should be held liable in damages for breach of contract. Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, not only debtors guilty of fraud, negligence or default but also debtor of every, in general, who fails in the performance of his obligations is bound to indemnify for the losses and damages caused thereby.