Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Arnold vs. Willits and Patterson

    Uploaded by

    Karen Patricio Lustica
    The plaintiff Arnold entered into a written 5-year contract with Willits & Patterson to operate an oil mill in the Philippines. When the business was reorganized under a new corporation formed by Willits, a second contract was signed to define Arnold's compensation. An accounting showed the corporation owed Arnold over 100,000 pesos. The corporation claimed Arnold owed them money and was not bound by the second contract. The court found that since Willits owned and controlled both corporations, they were effectively the same entity and the new corporation was bound by Arnold's contracts. The lower court's judgment in favor of the corporation was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    Arnold vs. Willits and Patterson

    Uploaded by

    Karen Patricio Lustica
    1K views1 page
    The plaintiff Arnold entered into a written 5-year contract with Willits & Patterson to operate an oil mill in the Philippines. When the business was reorganized under a new corporation formed by Willits, a second contract was signed to define Arnold's compensation. An accounting showed the corporation owed Arnold over 100,000 pesos. The corporation claimed Arnold owed them money and was not bound by the second contract. The court found that since Willits owned and controlled both corporations, they were effectively the same entity and the new corporation was bound by Arnold's contracts. The lower court's judgment in favor of the corporation was reversed.

    Original Description:

    ARNOLD VS. WILLITS AND PATTERSON

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff Arnold entered into a written 5-year contract with Willits & Patterson to operate an oil mill in the Philippines. When the business was reorganized under a new corporation formed by Willits, a second contract was signed to define Arnold's compensation. An accounting showed the corporation owed Arnold over 100,000 pesos. The corporation claimed Arnold owed them money and was not bound by the second contract. The court found that since Willits owned and controlled both corporations, they were effectively the same entity and the new corporation was bound by Arnold's contracts. The lower court's judgment in favor of the corporation was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Arnold vs. Willits and Patterson

    Uploaded by

    Karen Patricio Lustica
    The plaintiff Arnold entered into a written 5-year contract with Willits & Patterson to operate an oil mill in the Philippines. When the business was reorganized under a new corporation formed by Willits, a second contract was signed to define Arnold's compensation. An accounting showed the corporation owed Arnold over 100,000 pesos. The corporation claimed Arnold owed them money and was not bound by the second contract. The court found that since Willits owned and controlled both corporations, they were effectively the same entity and the new corporation was bound by Arnold's contracts. The lower court's judgment in favor of the corporation was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    ARNOLD VS.

    WILLITS AND PATTERSON


    G.R. No. L-20214
    March 17, 1923
    By: Karen P. Lustica
    Facts: Arnold, the plaintiff and the firm, Willits & Patterson in San Francisco entered into a (1 st)
    written contract by which the plaintiff was employed as the agent of the firm in the Philippine
    Islands for the operation of an oil mill for the period of five years at a minimum salary of $200
    per month and travelling expenses. Aside from his minimum salary, it was also stated in the
    contract that he will receive a brokerage fee from all his sales and other profits. Also, if the
    business was at a loss, Arnold would receive $400 per month.
    When Patterson retired, Willits became the sole owner of its assets. Willits organized a new
    corporation by the same name in San Francisco. The new firm acquired all the assets of the
    former firm. He came to Manila and organized a corporation here known as Willits & Patterson,
    Ltd., in and to which he again subscribed for all of the capital stock except the nominal shares
    necessary to qualify the directors. In legal effect, the San Francisco corporation took over and
    acquired all of the assets and liabilities of the Manila corporation.
    Willits signed a (2nd) new contract in the form of a letter. The purpose of which was to more
    clearly define and specify the compensation which the plaintiff was to receive for his services.
    An accounting was done and it showed that the corporation was due and owing the plaintiff
    under Exhibit B the sum of P106, 277.50. The San Francisco corporation became involved in
    financial trouble, and all of its assets were turned over to a "creditors' committee."
    Arnold filed a complaint and contended that the signing of the second contract in the manner
    and under the conditions in which it was signed, and through the subsequent acts and conduct
    of the parties, was ratified and, in legal effect, became and is now binding upon the defendant.
    Defendant contended that the second contract was signed but without authority. It also alleged
    that Arnold owed them some money.
    The Court of First Instance rendered a decision ordering Arnold to return the money to the
    corporation.
    Issue: WON the corporation is bound by the contracts.
    Held: YES.
    Ratio: Where the stock of a corporation is owned by one person whereby the corporation
    functions only for the benefit of such individual owner, the corporation and the individual should
    be deemed to be the same.
    In the case at bar, the corporations are under Willits. When the second contract was signed,
    Willits recognized that Arnolds services were to be performed by its terms. When the new
    corporation was organized and created, it still treated Arnold as its agent in the same manner as
    the first one.
    Hence, the new corporation was bound by the contract made under the previous firm.
    Dispositive: The judgment of the lower court is reversed.

    You might also like