Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 314 views

    Quiroga Vs - Parsons

    Uploaded by

    Jien Lou
    The plaintiff, Andres Quiroga, entered into a contract with Parsons Hardware Co granting Parsons the exclusive right to sell Quiroga's beds in the Visayan Islands. The contract stipulated that Quiroga would provide beds to Parsons at a discounted price from Manila and Parsons would pay within 60 days or upon Quiroga's request. Quiroga later alleged that Parsons violated obligations of the contract including selling beds at higher prices and failing to pay advertisement expenses. The court ruled that the contract was one of purchase and sale rather than an agency agreement as Quiroga claimed, since Parsons was obligated to pay for the beds regardless of whether they were sold.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Quiroga Vs - Parsons

    Uploaded by

    Jien Lou
    314 views2 pages
    The plaintiff, Andres Quiroga, entered into a contract with Parsons Hardware Co granting Parsons the exclusive right to sell Quiroga's beds in the Visayan Islands. The contract stipulated that Quiroga would provide beds to Parsons at a discounted price from Manila and Parsons would pay within 60 days or upon Quiroga's request. Quiroga later alleged that Parsons violated obligations of the contract including selling beds at higher prices and failing to pay advertisement expenses. The court ruled that the contract was one of purchase and sale rather than an agency agreement as Quiroga claimed, since Parsons was obligated to pay for the beds regardless of whether they were sold.

    Original Description:

    Quiroga vs.parsons

    Original Title

    Quiroga vs.parsons

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff, Andres Quiroga, entered into a contract with Parsons Hardware Co granting Parsons the exclusive right to sell Quiroga's beds in the Visayan Islands. The contract stipulated that Quiroga would provide beds to Parsons at a discounted price from Manila and Parsons would pay within 60 days or upon Quiroga's request. Quiroga later alleged that Parsons violated obligations of the contract including selling beds at higher prices and failing to pay advertisement expenses. The court ruled that the contract was one of purchase and sale rather than an agency agreement as Quiroga claimed, since Parsons was obligated to pay for the beds regardless of whether they were sold.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    314 views2 pages

    Quiroga Vs - Parsons

    Uploaded by

    Jien Lou
    The plaintiff, Andres Quiroga, entered into a contract with Parsons Hardware Co granting Parsons the exclusive right to sell Quiroga's beds in the Visayan Islands. The contract stipulated that Quiroga would provide beds to Parsons at a discounted price from Manila and Parsons would pay within 60 days or upon Quiroga's request. Quiroga later alleged that Parsons violated obligations of the contract including selling beds at higher prices and failing to pay advertisement expenses. The court ruled that the contract was one of purchase and sale rather than an agency agreement as Quiroga claimed, since Parsons was obligated to pay for the beds regardless of whether they were sold.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ANDRES QUIROGA vs.PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    Facts: A contract was entered into by and between the plaintiff, Quiroga
    and J. Parsons. The contract provides that Don Andres Quiroga grants the
    exclusive right to sell his beds in the Visayan Islands to J. Parsons under
    some conditions.
    In the contract in question, what was essential, as constituting its cause and
    subject matter, is that the plaintiff was to furnish the defendant with the
    beds which the latter might order, at the price stipulated, and that the
    defendant was to pay the price in the manner stipulated. The price agreed
    upon was the one determined by the plaintiff for the sale of these beds in
    Manila, with a discount of from 20 to 25 per cent, according to their class.
    Payment was to be made at the end of sixty days, or before, at the plaintiff's
    request, or in cash, if the defendant so preferred, and in these last two
    cases an additional discount was to be allowed for prompt payment.
    Plaintiff later averred that the defendant violated the following obligations:
    not to sell the beds at higher prices than those of the invoices; to have an
    open establishment in Iloilo; itself to conduct the agency; to keep the beds
    on public exhibition, and to pay for the advertisement expenses for the
    same; and to order the beds by the dozen and in no other manner
    Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was his agent for the sale of his beds in
    Iloilo, and that said obligations are implied in a contract of commercial
    agency.
    Issue: Whether the defendant, by reason of the contract, was an agent of
    the plaintiff for the sale of his beds?
    Held: No.
    In order to classify a contract, due regard must be given to its essential
    clauses.
    With the contract in question, stipulation provided were the essential
    features of a contract of purchase and sale. There was the obligation on the
    part of the plaintiff to supply the beds, and, on the part of the defendant, to
    pay their price. These features exclude the legal conception of an agency or
    order to sell whereby the mandatory or agent received the thing to sell it,
    and does not pay its price, but delivers to the principal the price he obtains

    from the sale of the thing to a third person, and if he does not succeed in
    selling it, he returns it. By virtue of the contract between the plaintiff and
    the defendant, the latter, on receiving the beds, was necessarily obliged to
    pay their price within the term fixed, without any other consideration and
    regardless as to whether he had or had not sold the beds.
    The Court held that the contract by and between the plaintiff and the
    defendant was one of purchase and sale, and that the obligations the breach
    of which is alleged as a cause of action are not imposed upon the defendant,
    either by agreement or by law.

    You might also like