Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    La Damasajdjdjd Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jacinto Sales
    1) La Fuerza Inc. installed a conveyor system for Associated Engineering Co. but it did not function satisfactorily upon testing. 2) Associated Engineering refused to pay the balance owed, claiming the system did not serve its purposes. 3) La Fuerza sued to recover the unpaid balance and the Court of Appeals ruled the rescission claim was time-barred under the six month period to rescind a sale. 4) The issue is whether the six month period started when the conveyors were installed and tested or later when payment was refused.

    Copyright:

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

    La Damasajdjdjd Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jacinto Sales
    31 views1 page
    1) La Fuerza Inc. installed a conveyor system for Associated Engineering Co. but it did not function satisfactorily upon testing. 2) Associated Engineering refused to pay the balance owed, claiming the system did not serve its purposes. 3) La Fuerza sued to recover the unpaid balance and the Court of Appeals ruled the rescission claim was time-barred under the six month period to rescind a sale. 4) The issue is whether the six month period started when the conveyors were installed and tested or later when payment was refused.

    Original Description:

    jdjdj

    Original Title

    La damasajdjdjd 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?

    1) La Fuerza Inc. installed a conveyor system for Associated Engineering Co. but it did not function satisfactorily upon testing. 2) Associated Engineering refused to pay the balance owed, claiming the system did not serve its purposes. 3) La Fuerza sued to recover the unpaid balance and the Court of Appeals ruled the rescission claim was time-barred under the six month period to rescind a sale. 4) The issue is whether the six month period started when the conveyors were installed and tested or later when payment was refused.

    Copyright:

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

    La Damasajdjdjd Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jacinto Sales
    1) La Fuerza Inc. installed a conveyor system for Associated Engineering Co. but it did not function satisfactorily upon testing. 2) Associated Engineering refused to pay the balance owed, claiming the system did not serve its purposes. 3) La Fuerza sued to recover the unpaid balance and the Court of Appeals ruled the rescission claim was time-barred under the six month period to rescind a sale. 4) The issue is whether the six month period started when the conveyors were installed and tested or later when payment was refused.

    Copyright:

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

    LA FUERZA, INC. vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CO.

    ,
    INC.

    Sometime in the month of January, 1960, Antonio Co, the manager of the plaintiff corporation, called
    the office of the defendant and told Mariano Lim, the President and general manager of the
    defendant recommending that the plant of defendant needed a conveyor system. He therefore
    offered his services to manufacture and install a conveyor system which, according to him, would
    increase production and efficiency of his business.

    The president of the defendant corporation did not make up his mind then but suggested to Antonio
    Co to put down his offer in writing. When Antonio Co returned to inquire about the action of the
    defendant on his said offer. The defendants president and general manager then expressed his
    conformity to the offer made in Exhibit A by writing at the foot thereof under the word "confirmation"
    his signature. He caused, however, to be added to this offer at the foot a note which reads: "All
    specifications shall be in strict accordance with the approved plan made part of this agreement
    hereof." A few days later, Antonio Co made the demand for the down payment of P5,000.00 which
    was readily delivered by the defendant in the form of a check for the said amount. After that
    agreement, the plaintiff started to prepare the premises for the installations of the conveyor system
    by digging holes in the cement floor of the plant and they delivered one unit of conveyor

    As a result of this trial or experimental runs, it was discovered, according to the defendant's general
    manager, that the conveyor system did not function to their satisfaction.

    It seems that the defects indicated by the said president and general manager of the defendant had
    not been remedied so that they came to the parting of the ways with the result that when the plaintiff
    billed the defendant for the balance of the contract price, the latter refused to pay for the reason that
    according to the defendant the conveyor system installed by the plaintiff did not serve the purpose.

    On March 22, 1961, the contractor commenced the present action to recover the sums of P8,250,
    balance of the stipulated price of the aforementioned conveyors.

    The appealed resolution of the Court of Appeals was, in effect, based upon the theory of prescription
    of La Fuerza's right of action for rescission of its contract with the plaintiff, for — in the language of
    said resolution — "Article 1571 of the Civil Code provides that an action to rescind 'shall be barred
    after six months from delivery of the thing sold'", and, in the case at bar, La Fuerza did not avail of
    the right to demand rescission until the filing of its answer in the Court of First Instance, on April 17,
    1961, or over ten (10) months after the installation of the conveyors in question had been completed
    on May 30, 1960.

    Issue: WON the period of 6 months prescribed in 1571 has begun to run.

    Upon the completion of the installation of the conveyors, in May, 1960, particularly after the last trial
    run, in July 1960, La Fuerza was in a position to decide whether or not it was satisfied with said
    conveyors, and, hence, to state whether the same were a accepted or rejected. The failure of La
    Fuerza to express categorically whether they accepted or rejected the conveyors does not detract
    from the fact that the same were actually in its possession and control; that, accordingly, the
    conveyors had already been delivered by the plaintiff; and that, the period prescribed in said Art.
    1571 had begun to run.

    You might also like