Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 394 views

    Hanlon: If The Purchaser Fails To Take Delivery and Pay The Purchase

    Uploaded by

    Jogie Arada
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that reversed the lower court's ruling in favor of Katigbak. While Katigbak breached his contract to purchase the winch, Evangelista still had the right to resell the equipment to mitigate damages. When Evangelista resold the winch for less than the contract price with Katigbak, Katigbak was liable for the difference based on legal precedent. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the doctrine that an unpaid vendor can resell goods to recover losses from the buyer's breach of contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Hanlon: If The Purchaser Fails To Take Delivery and Pay The Purchase

    Uploaded by

    Jogie Arada
    394 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that reversed the lower court's ruling in favor of Katigbak. While Katigbak breached his contract to purchase the winch, Evangelista still had the right to resell the equipment to mitigate damages. When Evangelista resold the winch for less than the contract price with Katigbak, Katigbak was liable for the difference based on legal precedent. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the doctrine that an unpaid vendor can resell goods to recover losses from the buyer's breach of contract.

    Original Description:

    Sales case digest

    Original Title

    Katigbak v CA

    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 Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that reversed the lower court's ruling in favor of Katigbak. While Katigbak breached his contract to purchase the winch, Evangelista still had the right to resell the equipment to mitigate damages. When Evangelista resold the winch for less than the contract price with Katigbak, Katigbak was liable for the difference based on legal precedent. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the doctrine that an unpaid vendor can resell goods to recover losses from the buyer's breach of contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Hanlon: If The Purchaser Fails To Take Delivery and Pay The Purchase

    Uploaded by

    Jogie Arada
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that reversed the lower court's ruling in favor of Katigbak. While Katigbak breached his contract to purchase the winch, Evangelista still had the right to resell the equipment to mitigate damages. When Evangelista resold the winch for less than the contract price with Katigbak, Katigbak was liable for the difference based on legal precedent. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the doctrine that an unpaid vendor can resell goods to recover losses from the buyer's breach of contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Katigbak v.

    CA  CA: reversed LC’s ruling


    G.R. No. L-16480 | January 31, 1962 o Notwithstanding the breach of contract, Evangelista still has a right to
    Paredes, J. his loss of P2,000
    o Hanlon: if the purchaser fails to take delivery and pay the purchase
    Topic: Breach of Contract -> Remedies of Unpaid Vendor -> Resale price of the subject matter of the contract, the vendor, without the need
    of first rescinding the contract judicially, is entitled to resell the same,
    Petitioner: ARTEMIO KATIGBAK and if he is obliged to sell it for less than the contract price, the buyer is
    Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, DANIEL EVANGELISTA and V. K. liable for the difference
    LUNDBERG  The loss should then be set off against the sum claimed by
    Katigbak, which would leave in favor of the company a
    Facts: balance of P29.85
     This case arose from an agreed purchase and sale of a Double Drum Carco
    Tractor Winch. Issue/s:
     A Double Drum Carco Tractor Winch Artemio Katigbak upon reading an W/N equipment can be resold – YES
    advertisement for the sale of the winch placed by
     Katigbak saw an ad placed by V. K. Lundberg, owner and operator of the Judgment:
    International Tractor and Equipment Co., Ltd., for the sale of a Double Drum WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, and the decision appealed from is affirmed
    Carco Tractor Winch (price: P12,000) in all respects, with cost against petitioner.
    o He then went to see Lundberg and inspected the equipment
    o Katigbak met with Daniel Evangelista, the owner, for a reduction of the Ratio:
    price  Hanlon: “In the present case the contract between Hanlon and the mining
     It was agreed that Katigbak will purchase the winch for company was executory as to both parties, and the obligation of the company
    P12,000, payable at P5,000 upon delivery and the balance of to deliver the shares could not arise until Hanlon should pay or tender
    P7,000 within 60 days payment of the money. The situation is similar to that which arises every day in
    o Condition of the sale: the winch would be delivered in good condition business transactions in which the purchaser of goods upon an executory
     Katigbak was told that the winch needed some repairs which contract fails to take delivery and pay the purchase price. The vendor in such
    could be done in Lundberg’s shop case is entitled to resell the goods. If he is obliged to sell for less than the
     Stipulated that the amount necessary for the repairs will be contract price, he holds the buyer for the difference; if he sells for as much
    advanced by Katigbak but deductible from the initial payment as or more than the contract price, the breach of contract by the original
    of P5,000 buyer is damnum absque injuria”
     The repairs were undertaken and P2,029.85 for spare parts was advanced by  Here, Katigbak failed to take delivery of the winch, subject matter of the
    Katigbak contract and such failure or breach was, according to CA, attributable to him, a
    o However, the sale was not consummated thus Katigbak sued fact which SC is bound to accept under existing jurisprudence
    Evangelista, Lundberg and his company for the refund of the amount he o The right to resell the equipment, therefore, cannot be disputed
    gave o It was also found by the Court of Appeals that in the subsequent
     Lundberg: alleged non-liability since the obligation for refund was a purely sale of the winch to a third party, the vendor thereof lost
    personal account between Evangelista and Katigbak; asked P500 for actual and P2,000.00, the sale having been only for P10,000.00, instead of
    compensatory damages and P5,000 as moral damages P12,000.00 as agreed upon, said difference to be borne by the
     Evangelista: while there was an agreement between him and Katigbak for the supposed vendee who failed to take delivery and/or to pay the price
    purchase and sale of the winch and that Katigbak advanced the payment for the  Katigbak: distinction between the Hanlon case and his case
    spare parts, Katigbak refused to comply with his contract to purchase the winch o SC: slight difference in the facts noted by Katigbak not sufficient
    and that as a result of such refusal, he [Evangelista] was forced to sell the winch to take away the case at bar from the application of the doctrine
    to a third person for only P10,000 (incurred a loss of P2,000 which Katigbak enunciated in the Hanlon case
    should be ordered to pay, plus moral damages of P5,000 and P700 for attorney's
    fees)
     Lower Court: ruled in favor of Katigbak

    You might also like