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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    Macondray V Pinon Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Zirk Tan
    Kangleon sent a letter introducing two individuals, Perfecto Piñon and Conrado Piring, and stating that he would guarantee payment if they failed to pay. Macondray and Company relied on this letter and sold the individuals films on credit. When they failed to pay, Macondray sued Kangleon to enforce the guaranty. Kangleon argued the letter was just an introduction and not an offer of guaranty. However, the court found the language in the letter clearly showed Kangleon's intent to guarantee payment if they defaulted. As such, no separate notice of acceptance was needed and Kangleon was bound as the guarantor. The court ruled in favor of Macondray,

    Copyright:

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

    Macondray V Pinon Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Zirk Tan
    85 views2 pages
    Kangleon sent a letter introducing two individuals, Perfecto Piñon and Conrado Piring, and stating that he would guarantee payment if they failed to pay. Macondray and Company relied on this letter and sold the individuals films on credit. When they failed to pay, Macondray sued Kangleon to enforce the guaranty. Kangleon argued the letter was just an introduction and not an offer of guaranty. However, the court found the language in the letter clearly showed Kangleon's intent to guarantee payment if they defaulted. As such, no separate notice of acceptance was needed and Kangleon was bound as the guarantor. The court ruled in favor of Macondray,

    Original Description:

    Macondray v Pinon Case digest

    Original Title

    Macondray v Pinon Case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kangleon sent a letter introducing two individuals, Perfecto Piñon and Conrado Piring, and stating that he would guarantee payment if they failed to pay. Macondray and Company relied on this letter and sold the individuals films on credit. When they failed to pay, Macondray sued Kangleon to enforce the guaranty. Kangleon argued the letter was just an introduction and not an offer of guaranty. However, the court found the language in the letter clearly showed Kangleon's intent to guarantee payment if they defaulted. As such, no separate notice of acceptance was needed and Kangleon was bound as the guarantor. The court ruled in favor of Macondray,

    Copyright:

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

    Macondray V Pinon Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Zirk Tan
    Kangleon sent a letter introducing two individuals, Perfecto Piñon and Conrado Piring, and stating that he would guarantee payment if they failed to pay. Macondray and Company relied on this letter and sold the individuals films on credit. When they failed to pay, Macondray sued Kangleon to enforce the guaranty. Kangleon argued the letter was just an introduction and not an offer of guaranty. However, the court found the language in the letter clearly showed Kangleon's intent to guarantee payment if they defaulted. As such, no separate notice of acceptance was needed and Kangleon was bound as the guarantor. The court ruled in favor of Macondray,

    Copyright:

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

    Macondray andcompany, Inc.

    v Pinon

    Facts:

    the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that through a
    letter by Ruperto K. Kangleon, then a member of the Senate, that he would guarantee
    payment of his co-defendants' obligation, should they fail to pay on the due date

    Because of this the plaintiff sold on credit and delivered to the defendants Perfecto
    Piñon and Conrado Piring, 127 rolls of cinematographic films, for the total sum of
    P6,985.
    However, the principal debtors failed to pay; After extensive investigations by the
    plaintiff it has found that the defendants do not have any property.

    Kangleon contends that the letter was only to introduce his co-defendants;
    that assuming that there was an intent on his part to guarantee payment, the
    said letter was only an offer to act as guarantor of his co-defendants; to act as
    guarantor for his co-defendants was not made known to him by the plaintiff,
    therefore the contract of guaranty between them has not been perfected;

    Issue:

    Whether Kangleon is a guaranty

    Ruling:

    The appellant claims that the letter (Exhibit F) is mere a letter of


    introduction and does not constitute an offer of guaranty. A cursory reading of
    the letter (Exhibit F) belies his assertion. While in his opening sentence he
    says at that "This will introduce to you the bearers, Messrs. Conrado Piring
    and Perfecto Piño”… in the later part he says that "for which by their guaranty
    I pledge payment." This can only mean that he undertakes to
    guarantee payment of the principal debtors' obligation should they fail to pay.
    That the appellant really meant to guarantee payment of the principal debtors'
    obligation should they default, is patent in his answer to the appellee's letter,
    he acknowledged
    receipt of the appellee's letter of the 27th of the same month and informed it
    that the principal
    debtors were "being contacted to invite their attention to your letter." Had the
    appellant meant otherwise, he would have immediately denied that he ever
    guaranteed payment of the principal debtors obligation. This he did not do.

    The appellant's very letter constitutes his undertaking of guaranty. "Contracts


    shall be
    obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential
    requisites for
    their validity are present."

    A contract of guaranty is not a formal contract and shall be valid in whatever


    form it may be, provided that it complies with the statute of frauds.

    The appellant insists that he should have been notified by the appellee of the
    acceptance of his offer of guaranty. In the first place, his letter already
    constitutes his undertaking of guaranty. In the second place, the contract
    entered into by and between the appellee and the defendants in default is the
    principal contract and the appellee is subsidiary to the principal contract.
    Since the principal contract had already been perfected, the subsidiary
    contract of guaranty became binding upon effectivity of the principal contract.
    Hence no notice of acceptance by the appellee to the appellant is necessary for
    its validity.

    You might also like