Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Aerospace Chemical V Ca G.r.no. 108129 September 23, 1999 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Richie Postigo
    The document summarizes a court case between an aerospace company (petitioner) and a fertilizer corporation (private respondent). The petitioner purchased 500 metric tons of sulfuric acid from the respondent, but was delayed in picking it up. Some of the acid was loaded onto a vessel that later sank. The issue is whether the respondent is responsible for storage and preservation expenses for the acid under Article 1504 of the Civil Code. The court ruled that since the petitioner was at fault for delaying pickup, Article 1504 states the goods are at the risk of the party at fault. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the expenses.

    Copyright:

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

    Aerospace Chemical V Ca G.r.no. 108129 September 23, 1999 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Richie Postigo
    133 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case between an aerospace company (petitioner) and a fertilizer corporation (private respondent). The petitioner purchased 500 metric tons of sulfuric acid from the respondent, but was delayed in picking it up. Some of the acid was loaded onto a vessel that later sank. The issue is whether the respondent is responsible for storage and preservation expenses for the acid under Article 1504 of the Civil Code. The court ruled that since the petitioner was at fault for delaying pickup, Article 1504 states the goods are at the risk of the party at fault. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the expenses.

    Original Description:

    AEROSPACE CHEMICAL V CA

    Original Title

    6 AEROSPACE CHEMICAL 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 document summarizes a court case between an aerospace company (petitioner) and a fertilizer corporation (private respondent). The petitioner purchased 500 metric tons of sulfuric acid from the respondent, but was delayed in picking it up. Some of the acid was loaded onto a vessel that later sank. The issue is whether the respondent is responsible for storage and preservation expenses for the acid under Article 1504 of the Civil Code. The court ruled that since the petitioner was at fault for delaying pickup, Article 1504 states the goods are at the risk of the party at fault. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the expenses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    133 views2 pages

    Aerospace Chemical V Ca G.r.no. 108129 September 23, 1999 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Richie Postigo
    The document summarizes a court case between an aerospace company (petitioner) and a fertilizer corporation (private respondent). The petitioner purchased 500 metric tons of sulfuric acid from the respondent, but was delayed in picking it up. Some of the acid was loaded onto a vessel that later sank. The issue is whether the respondent is responsible for storage and preservation expenses for the acid under Article 1504 of the Civil Code. The court ruled that since the petitioner was at fault for delaying pickup, Article 1504 states the goods are at the risk of the party at fault. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the expenses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AEROSPACE CHEMICAL V CA

    g.r.no. 108129 september 23, 1999

    FACTS:

    On June 27, 1986, petitioner Aerospace Industries, Inc. (Aerospace) purchased five
    hundred (500) metric tons of sulfuric acid from private respondent Philippine Phosphate
    Fertilizer Corporation (Philphos). Initially set beginning July 1986, the agreement provided that
    the buyer shall pay its purchases in equivalent Philippine currency value, five days prior to the
    shipment date. Petitioner as buyer committed to secure the means of transport to pick-up the
    purchases from private respondent's loadports. Per agreement, one hundred metric tons (100 MT)
    of sulfuric acid should be taken from Basay, Negros Oriental storage tank, while the remaining
    four hundred metric tons (400 MT) should be retrieved from Sangi, Cebu. On December 18,
    1986, M/T Sultan Kayumanggi docked at Sangi, Cebu, but withdrew only 157.51 MT of sulfuric
    acid. Again, the vessel tilted. Further loading was aborted. Two survey reports conducted by the
    Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) Far East Limited, dated December 17, 1986 and January
    2, 1987, attested to these occurrences. Later, on a date not specified in the record, M/T Sultan
    Kayumanggi sank with a total of 227.51 MT of sulfuric acid on board. Petitioner chartered
    another vessel, M/T Don Victor, with a capacity of approximately 500 MT.6 [TSN, September 1,
    1989, pp. 28-29.] On January 26 and March 20, 1987, Melecio Hernandez, acting for the
    petitioner, addressed letters to private respondent, concerning additional orders of sulfuric acid to
    replace its sunken purchases.

    ISSUE:

    Should expenses for the storage and preservation of the purchased fungible goods,
    namely sulfuric acid, be on seller's account pursuant to Article 1504 of the Civil Code?

    RULING:

    Petitioner tries to exempt itself from paying rental expenses and other damages by
    arguing that expenses for the preservation of fungible goods must be assumed by the seller.
    Rental expenses of storing sulfuric acid should be at private respondent's account until ownership
    is transferred, according to petitioner. However, the general rule that before delivery, the risk of
    loss is borne by the seller who is still the owner, is not applicable in this case because petitioner
    had incurred delay in the performance of its obligation. Article 1504 of the Civil Code clearly
    states: "Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the ownership therein
    is transferred to the buyer, but when the ownership therein is transferred to the buyer the goods
    are at the buyer's risk whether actual delivery has been made or not, except that: (2) Where actual
    delivery has been delayed through the fault of either the buyer or seller the goods are at the risk
    of the party at fault."

    On this score, we quote with approval the findings of the appellate court, thus: The
    defendant [herein private respondent] was not remiss in reminding the plaintiff that it would have
    to bear the said expenses for failure to lift the commodity for an unreasonable length of time.But
    even assuming that the plaintiff did not consent to be so bound, the provisions of Civil Code
    come in to make it liable for the damages sought by the defendant.

    You might also like