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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Daywalt V La Corporacion de Los Padres Agustinos Recoletos

    Uploaded by

    Hilikus Incubus
    Daywalt entered into a contract in 1902 to purchase land from Teodorica Endencia for 4000 pesos. When the land title was issued, it was discovered the land was actually 1248 hectares instead of the believed 452 hectares. Endencia did not want to transfer the full land amount. Daywalt sued for specific performance. Meanwhile, La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos owned an adjacent property and their representative Fr. Sanz influenced Endencia not to convey the full land to Daywalt. Daywalt sued Recoletos for 500,000 pesos in damages for interfering in the contract. The court found Recoletos was not liable because Endencia herself would not

    Copyright:

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

    Daywalt V La Corporacion de Los Padres Agustinos Recoletos

    Uploaded by

    Hilikus Incubus
    46 views1 page
    Daywalt entered into a contract in 1902 to purchase land from Teodorica Endencia for 4000 pesos. When the land title was issued, it was discovered the land was actually 1248 hectares instead of the believed 452 hectares. Endencia did not want to transfer the full land amount. Daywalt sued for specific performance. Meanwhile, La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos owned an adjacent property and their representative Fr. Sanz influenced Endencia not to convey the full land to Daywalt. Daywalt sued Recoletos for 500,000 pesos in damages for interfering in the contract. The court found Recoletos was not liable because Endencia herself would not

    Original Description:

    zxczxczxczxc

    Original Title

    Day Walt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Daywalt entered into a contract in 1902 to purchase land from Teodorica Endencia for 4000 pesos. When the land title was issued, it was discovered the land was actually 1248 hectares instead of the believed 452 hectares. Endencia did not want to transfer the full land amount. Daywalt sued for specific performance. Meanwhile, La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos owned an adjacent property and their representative Fr. Sanz influenced Endencia not to convey the full land to Daywalt. Daywalt sued Recoletos for 500,000 pesos in damages for interfering in the contract. The court found Recoletos was not liable because Endencia herself would not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views1 page

    Daywalt V La Corporacion de Los Padres Agustinos Recoletos

    Uploaded by

    Hilikus Incubus
    Daywalt entered into a contract in 1902 to purchase land from Teodorica Endencia for 4000 pesos. When the land title was issued, it was discovered the land was actually 1248 hectares instead of the believed 452 hectares. Endencia did not want to transfer the full land amount. Daywalt sued for specific performance. Meanwhile, La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos owned an adjacent property and their representative Fr. Sanz influenced Endencia not to convey the full land to Daywalt. Daywalt sued Recoletos for 500,000 pesos in damages for interfering in the contract. The court found Recoletos was not liable because Endencia herself would not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DAYWALT v LA CORPORACION DE LOS PADRES AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS

    Facts: in 1902, Teodorica Endencia executed a contract whereby she obligated herself to convey to Geo W. Daywalt
    a 452-hectare parcel of land for P 4000. They agreed that a deed should be executed as soon as Endencia’s title to
    the land was perfected in the Court of Land Registration and a Torrens title issued in her name. When the Torrens
    title was issued, Endencia found out that the property measured 1248 hectares instead of 452 hectares, as she
    initially believed. Because of this, she became reluctant to transfer the whole tract to Daywalt, claiming that she
    never intended to sell so large an amount and that she had been misinformed as to its area. Daywalt filed an action
    for specific performance. The SC ordered Endencia to convey the entiret act to Daywalt. Meanwhile, La Corporacion de
    los Padres Agustinos Recoletos (Recoletos), was a religious corp., w/c owned an estate immediately adjacent to the
    property sold by Endencia to Daywalt. It also happened that Fr. Sanz, the representative of the Recoletos, exerted
    some influence and ascendancy over Endencia, who was a woman of little force and easily subject to the influence
    of other people. Fr. Sanz knew of the existence of the contracts with Daywalt and discouraged her from conveying the
    entire tract. Daywalt filed an action for damages against the Recoletos on the ground that it unlawfully
    induced Endencia to refrain from the performance of her contract for the sale of the land in question and to
    withhold delivery of the Torrens title. Daywalt’s claim for damages against the Recoletos was for the huge sum of P
    500000 [in the year 1919], since he claims that because of the interference of the Recoletos, he failed to
    consummate a contract with another person for the sale of the property and its conversion into a sugar mill.

    Issue: whether Recoletos is liable to Daywalt?

    Held: No, it is not liable. The stranger who interferes in a contract between other parties cannot become more
    extensively liable in damages for the non-performance of the contract than the party in whose behalf he
    intermediates. Hence, in order to determine the liability of the Recoletos, there is first a need to consider the liability
    of Endencia to Daywalt. The damages claimed by Daywalt from Endencia cannot be recovered from her, first,
    because these are special damages w/c were not w/in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made,
    and secondly, these damages are too remote to be the subject of recovery. Since Endencia is not liable for damages
    to Daywalt, neither can the Recoletos be held liable. As already suggested, by advising Endencia not to perform the
    contract, the Recoletos could in no event render itself more extensively liable than the principal in the contract.

    You might also like