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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 108 views

    Civ2 Case 2

    Uploaded by

    Ren Irene D Macatangay
    The document summarizes a case between the Lam Spouses and Kodak Philippines regarding the sale of photography equipment. The Lam Spouses ordered and received the first of three units but failed to pay subsequent invoices. Both parties sought to rescind the contract, with Kodak demanding return of the delivered unit and the Lam Spouses citing non-delivery of the remaining units. The court ruled that (1) the contract was for a single transaction of all three units, not divisible obligations, and (2) rescission was valid under the Civil Code and both parties must be restored to their pre-contract positions.

    Copyright:

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

    Civ2 Case 2

    Uploaded by

    Ren Irene D Macatangay
    108 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a case between the Lam Spouses and Kodak Philippines regarding the sale of photography equipment. The Lam Spouses ordered and received the first of three units but failed to pay subsequent invoices. Both parties sought to rescind the contract, with Kodak demanding return of the delivered unit and the Lam Spouses citing non-delivery of the remaining units. The court ruled that (1) the contract was for a single transaction of all three units, not divisible obligations, and (2) rescission was valid under the Civil Code and both parties must be restored to their pre-contract positions.

    Original Title

    civ2 case 2.docx

    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 document summarizes a case between the Lam Spouses and Kodak Philippines regarding the sale of photography equipment. The Lam Spouses ordered and received the first of three units but failed to pay subsequent invoices. Both parties sought to rescind the contract, with Kodak demanding return of the delivered unit and the Lam Spouses citing non-delivery of the remaining units. The court ruled that (1) the contract was for a single transaction of all three units, not divisible obligations, and (2) rescission was valid under the Civil Code and both parties must be restored to their pre-contract positions.

    Copyright:

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

    Civ2 Case 2

    Uploaded by

    Ren Irene D Macatangay
    The document summarizes a case between the Lam Spouses and Kodak Philippines regarding the sale of photography equipment. The Lam Spouses ordered and received the first of three units but failed to pay subsequent invoices. Both parties sought to rescind the contract, with Kodak demanding return of the delivered unit and the Lam Spouses citing non-delivery of the remaining units. The court ruled that (1) the contract was for a single transaction of all three units, not divisible obligations, and (2) rescission was valid under the Civil Code and both parties must be restored to their pre-contract positions.

    Copyright:

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

    Divisible Obligation, Rescission

    Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45


    [ Complaint for Replevin and/or Recovery of of sum of money]

    Spouses Alexander and Julie Lam, Doing Business under the Name and Style COLORWIK
    LABORATORIES and COLORWIK PHOTO SUPPLY vs. Kodak Philippines, Ltd.,
    G.R. No. 167615
    Ponente: Leonen, J

    Facts:

    On January 8, 1992, the Lam Spouses and Kodak Philippines, Ltd., entered into an
    agreement (Letter Agreement) for the sale of three units of the Kodak Minilab System 22XL
    (Minilab Equipment) in the amount of P1,796,000.00 per unit. On January 15, 1992, respondent
    delivered one unit of the minilab equipment in Tagum, Davao Province. The delivered unit was
    installed by Noritsu representatives on Mrach 2, 1992. The Lam Spouses issued postdated checks
    amounting to P35,000.00 each for twelve months as payment for the first delivered unit, with the
    first check due on March 31, 1992.

    Petitioner requested that respondent not to negotiate the check dated March 31, 1992,
    allegedly due to insufficiency of funds. The same request was made for the check due on April 30,
    1992. However, both checks were negotiated by respondent and were honoured by the depositary
    bank. The other checks were subsequently dishonored after the petitioner ordered the depositary
    bank to stop payment.

    Respondent cancelled the sale and demanded that the petitioner return the unit it delivered
    together with its accessories. Petitioner spouses ignored the demand but also rescinded the contract
    through the letter dated November 18, 1992 on account of respondents failure to deliver the two
    remaining units.

    Issues:

    1. Whether the contract between the petitioners Spouses Alexander and Julie Lam and
    respondent Kodak Philippines, Ltd pertained to obligations that are severable, divisible, and
    susceptible of partial performance under Article 1225 of the New Civil Code?
    2. Whether or not Article 1191 of the Civil Code is applicable in the present case.

    Ruling:

    1. The High Court ruled in the negative. Both parties rely on the Letter of Agreement as a basis
    of their respective obligations xxx Based on the foregoing, the intention of the parties is for
    there to be a single transaction covering all three(3) units of the Multilab Equiptment. xxx
    This intent must prevail even though the articles involved are physically separable and
    capable of being paid for and delivered individually, consistent with the New Civil Code.
    Article 1225. For the purpose of the preceeding articles, obligations to give definite things
    and those which are not susceptible of partial performance shall be deemed to be divisible.
    xxx
    2. With both parties opting for rescission of the contract under Article1191, the Court correctly
    ordered for restitution. xxx The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones,
    incase one of the obligors should not comply with what was incumbent upon him. xxx The
    Court of Appeals correctly ruled that both parties must be restored to their original situation
    as far as practicable as if the contract was never entered into.xx

    You might also like