Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Norie Sapanta
    The case involved a dispute over whether a contract between Green Valley Poultry and Squibb was an agency agreement or sales contract. Squibb sued Green Valley to collect payment for goods delivered but not paid for. Both lower courts ruled the agreement was a sales contract, making Green Valley liable to pay. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Green Valley liable regardless of how the contract was classified.

    Copyright:

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

    Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Norie Sapanta
    60 views1 page
    The case involved a dispute over whether a contract between Green Valley Poultry and Squibb was an agency agreement or sales contract. Squibb sued Green Valley to collect payment for goods delivered but not paid for. Both lower courts ruled the agreement was a sales contract, making Green Valley liable to pay. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Green Valley liable regardless of how the contract was classified.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over whether a contract between Green Valley Poultry and Squibb was an agency agreement or sales contract. Squibb sued Green Valley to collect payment for goods delivered but not paid for. Both lower courts ruled the agreement was a sales contract, making Green Valley liable to pay. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Green Valley liable regardless of how the contract was classified.

    Copyright:

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

    Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Norie Sapanta
    The case involved a dispute over whether a contract between Green Valley Poultry and Squibb was an agency agreement or sales contract. Squibb sued Green Valley to collect payment for goods delivered but not paid for. Both lower courts ruled the agreement was a sales contract, making Green Valley liable to pay. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Green Valley liable regardless of how the contract was classified.

    Copyright:

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

    41. Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. vs.

    Intermediate Appellate Court, 133


    SCRA 697, No. L-49395 December 26, 1984
    FACTS: For goods delivered to Green Valley but unpaid, Squibb filed suit to collect. The
    trial court as aforesaid gave judgment in favor of Squibb which was affirmed by the Court
    of Appeals.
    Green Valley claimed that the contract with Squibb was a mere agency to sell; that it
    never purchased goods from Squibb; that the goods received were on consignment only
    with the obligation to turn over the proceeds, less its commission, or to return the goods
    if not sold, and since it had sold the goods but had not been able to collect from the
    purchasers thereof, the action was premature.
    Squibb claimed that the contract was one of sale so that Green Valley was obligated to
    pay for the goods received upon the expiration of the 60-day credit period.
    Both courts ruled that the agreement between the parties was a sales contract.
    ISSUE: Whether the contract was an agency to sell.
    HELD: No. We do not have to categorize the contract. Whether viewed as an agency to
    sell or as a contract of sale, the liability of Green Valley is undeniable.
    Adopting Green Valley’s theory that the contract is an agency to sell, it is liable
    because it sold on credit without authority from its principal. Art. 1905 of the Civil Code
    provides that the commission agent cannot, without the express or implied consent of the
    principal, sell on credit. Should he do so, the principal may demand from him payment in
    cash, but the commission agent shall be entitled to any interest or benefit, which may
    result from such sale.
    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed; the judgment of the defunct Court
    of Appeals is affirmed with costs against the petitioner

    You might also like