Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 324 views

    Case Digest (LIM YHI LUYA Versus COURT OF APPEALS GR NO. L40258 September 11,1980)

    Uploaded by

    Dyan Xylene
    Lim and Hind Sugar Company had a business relationship where Lim would sell sugar to Hind and Hind would supply Lim with various materials on credit. In November 1970, Hind offered to sell Lim sugar for $37 per picul. The parties agreed Lim would buy 4,085 piculs for $35 per picul, with payment due in cash upon signing. Lim received the sugar but Hind later denied receiving payment. The Supreme Court ruled that Lim had paid Hind based on the contract terms and ordered Hind to deliver the remaining sugar owed or pay damages to Lim.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest (LIM YHI LUYA Versus COURT OF APPEALS GR NO. L40258 September 11,1980)

    Uploaded by

    Dyan Xylene
    324 views1 page
    Lim and Hind Sugar Company had a business relationship where Lim would sell sugar to Hind and Hind would supply Lim with various materials on credit. In November 1970, Hind offered to sell Lim sugar for $37 per picul. The parties agreed Lim would buy 4,085 piculs for $35 per picul, with payment due in cash upon signing. Lim received the sugar but Hind later denied receiving payment. The Supreme Court ruled that Lim had paid Hind based on the contract terms and ordered Hind to deliver the remaining sugar owed or pay damages to Lim.

    Original Title

    Case Digest (LIM YHI LUYA versus COURT OF APPEALS GR NO. L40258 September 11,1980)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lim and Hind Sugar Company had a business relationship where Lim would sell sugar to Hind and Hind would supply Lim with various materials on credit. In November 1970, Hind offered to sell Lim sugar for $37 per picul. The parties agreed Lim would buy 4,085 piculs for $35 per picul, with payment due in cash upon signing. Lim received the sugar but Hind later denied receiving payment. The Supreme Court ruled that Lim had paid Hind based on the contract terms and ordered Hind to deliver the remaining sugar owed or pay damages to Lim.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest (LIM YHI LUYA Versus COURT OF APPEALS GR NO. L40258 September 11,1980)

    Uploaded by

    Dyan Xylene
    Lim and Hind Sugar Company had a business relationship where Lim would sell sugar to Hind and Hind would supply Lim with various materials on credit. In November 1970, Hind offered to sell Lim sugar for $37 per picul. The parties agreed Lim would buy 4,085 piculs for $35 per picul, with payment due in cash upon signing. Lim received the sugar but Hind later denied receiving payment. The Supreme Court ruled that Lim had paid Hind based on the contract terms and ordered Hind to deliver the remaining sugar owed or pay damages to Lim.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest

    A. FACTS:
    Since 1958, Lim Yhi Luya (Lim) and Hind Sugar Company (Hind) have had business
    dealings, with Lim selling sugar to Hind and Hind supplying the company with diesoline,
    gasoline, muriatic acid, sulfuric acid, and other supplies and materials ordered on credit. On
    November 12, 1970, Lim received a telegram from Hind that said, "Please come tomorrow
    morning without fail." The next day, Lim went to Hind, who offered to sell sugar for P37.00
    per picul. The parties agreed to buy 4,085 piculs of sugar for P35.00 per picul. Hind
    prepared the contract of sale, and one of the specific terms of the contract states that the
    term of payment is cash upon signing of the contract. On the same day, and in accordance
    with the contract, Lim received four delivery orders totaling 4,085 piculs of sugar sold.
    Between November 13, 1970 and January 27, 1971, Hind withdrew a total of 3,735 piculs
    from the company warehouse in varying quantities, leaving a balance of 350 piculs
    undeliverable.

    The issue of payment arose between the parties on January 22, 1971. Lim claimed that
    he paid P142,975.00 to company officials on November 13, 1970, and as proof of his
    payment, he referred to the contract's stipulation, which stated "Terms: Cash upon signing of
    this contract." Hind denied Lim's claim, claiming that the latter never paid for the sugar on
    November 13, 1970, or at any time thereafter. Lim was not paid, according to an audit report
    or an examination of the company's books.

    B. ISSUE/S:
    Whether Lim has paid the sum of P142,975.00 which is the purchase price of the 4,085
    piculs of sugar covered by the contract of sale between the parties?

    C. SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE ISSUE/S CITED:


    The decision of the trial court is hereby (1) On the first cause of action, ordering the
    respondent to immediately deliver to petitioner the 350 piculs of H-2 sugar or to pay
    petitioner the sum of P12,250.00 plus legal rate of interest from November 13, 1970, until
    fully paid, giving unto the petitioner the option to choose whether to receive the sugar or to
    receive the payment corresponding to the same; (2) On the second cause of action,
    ordering the respondent to deliver immediately to the petitioner the 1,000 piculs of export
    sugar or to pay the petitioner the sum of P55,000 00 with legal rate of interest from January
    20, 1971, but giving the option or choice to the petitioner; (3) With respect to the third cause
    of action, ordering the respondent to deliver to the petitioner the 160 piculs of H-3 sugar or
    to pay to petitioner the sum of P6,400,00 with legal rate of interest from June 3, 1970, but
    the option again belonging to the petitioner; (4) On the fourth cause of action, ordering the
    respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of P60,592.30 with interest at 12% per annum
    from the filing of the complaint and to pay attorney’s fees of 25% of the principal obligation,
    that is, the sum of P15,148.08; (5) On the fifth and sixth causes of action, ordering the
    respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of P25,000 00 as damages and to pay another
    sum of P15,000 00 as attorney’s fees, the said fees referring to the first, second and third
    causes of action.

    You might also like