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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 738 views

    Spouses Posadas Case

    Uploaded by

    Rhows Buergo
    This case discusses whether a contract for a joint venture between SM Investments Corporation and respondents Estela Marfori Posadas et. al. was perfected. The court found that a joint venture agreement was perfected based on: 1) Consent between the parties as shown through an offer by SMIC, a counteroffer by respondents that was accepted, and agreement on an increased goodwill payment. 2) The object of the joint venture was certain which was to develop parcels of land. 3) Consideration in the form of a goodwill payment and profit sharing scheme between the parties. Therefore, the court affirmed the perfected joint venture agreement must be honored.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Posadas Case

    Uploaded by

    Rhows Buergo
    738 views1 page
    This case discusses whether a contract for a joint venture between SM Investments Corporation and respondents Estela Marfori Posadas et. al. was perfected. The court found that a joint venture agreement was perfected based on: 1) Consent between the parties as shown through an offer by SMIC, a counteroffer by respondents that was accepted, and agreement on an increased goodwill payment. 2) The object of the joint venture was certain which was to develop parcels of land. 3) Consideration in the form of a goodwill payment and profit sharing scheme between the parties. Therefore, the court affirmed the perfected joint venture agreement must be honored.

    Original Description:

    Contracts Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether a contract for a joint venture between SM Investments Corporation and respondents Estela Marfori Posadas et. al. was perfected. The court found that a joint venture agreement was perfected based on: 1) Consent between the parties as shown through an offer by SMIC, a counteroffer by respondents that was accepted, and agreement on an increased goodwill payment. 2) The object of the joint venture was certain which was to develop parcels of land. 3) Consideration in the form of a goodwill payment and profit sharing scheme between the parties. Therefore, the court affirmed the perfected joint venture agreement must be honored.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Posadas Case

    Uploaded by

    Rhows Buergo
    This case discusses whether a contract for a joint venture between SM Investments Corporation and respondents Estela Marfori Posadas et. al. was perfected. The court found that a joint venture agreement was perfected based on: 1) Consent between the parties as shown through an offer by SMIC, a counteroffer by respondents that was accepted, and agreement on an increased goodwill payment. 2) The object of the joint venture was certain which was to develop parcels of land. 3) Consideration in the form of a goodwill payment and profit sharing scheme between the parties. Therefore, the court affirmed the perfected joint venture agreement must be honored.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE 20

    G.R. No. 200901. December 7, 2015.


    SM INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, vs. ESTELA MARFORI POSADAS et.al., respondents.

    TOPIC: Perfected Contract

    FACTS: Respondents own several parcels of land. Sometime in 1995, SMIC, through its
    President, Henry Sy, Jr., sent respondents a written offer for a joint venture for the development of
    the said Property. The respondents then replied with a counter-offer. This counter-offer was
    accepted by Mr. Sy. SMIC, in compliance with what it considered as a perfected contract for the
    joint venture, sent respondents four drawings of the proposed mall and its location within the
    Subject Property.

    However, after receiving the aforementioned drawings, respondents sent SMIC a letter
    informing it that they had received several other offers for the Subject Property, and demanding
    that SMIC better the said offers. On 27 February 1996, SMIC sent respondents a letter reiterating
    its previous offer, and increasing the good will money, from P80,000,000.00 to P140,000,000.00.

    Thereafter, SMIC, through counsel, sent respondents a letter reminding them to respect the
    joint venture agreement for the development of the Subject Property. But, It appearing that
    respondents were not willing to honor the joint venture agreement, SMIC, filed a case for Specific
    Performance and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary
    Injunction against respondents

    ISSUE: Whether a contract for a joint venture between the parties has, in fact, been perfected.

    HELD: YES. It is basic in this jurisdiction that a contract is perfected by mere consent of the
    parties.

    At this point, following Articles 1318 and 1319 of NCC thereof, we agree with the finding of
    the Trial Court that a joint venture agreement between the parties has been perfected, in that (i)
    there is consent, or a meeting of the minds, (ii) there is an object certain, which is the joint venture,
    and (iii) there is a cause and/or consideration, which are the goodwill money and specific sharing
    scheme.


    First, the Letter of 08 August 1995 embodies a complete offer on the part of SMIC in that it
    contained an object certain, which is the joint venture for the development of the Subject Property,
    and a specific cause and/or consideration therefor, which are the goodwill money in the
    amount of P70 Million, plus a 60/40 sharing, in favor of respondents of the said development.

    Second, the Letter dated 18 August 1995 in return embodies a complete counteroffer on
    the part of respondents in that they conveyed their acceptance of the joint venture subject only to
    the counterproposal to increase the goodwill money from P70 Million to P80 Million.

    Third, the Letter dated 24 August 1995 contains an unqualified acceptance on the part of
    SMIC of the above mentioned counterproposal of respondents, again on the aspect of the
    goodwill money alone.

    Indeed, the letter of SMIC of 27 February 1996 on the increased goodwill money was a
    post perfection matter, and clearly, was for the purpose of having the issue of breach of the
    perfected contract settled without further ado. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the finding of the
    Trial Court that there is a perfected joint venture agreement between the parties for the
    development of the Subject Property. Therefore, the said perfected joint venture agreement still
    stands. In this jurisdiction, obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
    contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. ###

    You might also like