Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 205 views

    Song Fo and Co. vs. Hawaiian Philippine Co

    Uploaded by

    Krisel Montera
    The plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against the defendant for failing to deliver 400,000 gallons of molasses as agreed. The defendant argued it only agreed to 300,000 gallons and could provide an additional 100,000 gallons but made no promises. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages. The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court found that the contract only specified 300,000 gallons and the additional 100,000 was not a definite promise. Further, the defendant had the right to rescind the contract when the plaintiff failed to make a timely payment, but the delay was minor and the defendant waived this by continuing performance. However, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for extra costs incurred in purchasing

    Copyright:

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

    Song Fo and Co. vs. Hawaiian Philippine Co

    Uploaded by

    Krisel Montera
    205 views2 pages
    The plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against the defendant for failing to deliver 400,000 gallons of molasses as agreed. The defendant argued it only agreed to 300,000 gallons and could provide an additional 100,000 gallons but made no promises. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages. The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court found that the contract only specified 300,000 gallons and the additional 100,000 was not a definite promise. Further, the defendant had the right to rescind the contract when the plaintiff failed to make a timely payment, but the delay was minor and the defendant waived this by continuing performance. However, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for extra costs incurred in purchasing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against the defendant for failing to deliver 400,000 gallons of molasses as agreed. The defendant argued it only agreed to 300,000 gallons and could provide an additional 100,000 gallons but made no promises. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages. The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court found that the contract only specified 300,000 gallons and the additional 100,000 was not a definite promise. Further, the defendant had the right to rescind the contract when the plaintiff failed to make a timely payment, but the delay was minor and the defendant waived this by continuing performance. However, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for extra costs incurred in purchasing

    Copyright:

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

    Song Fo and Co. vs. Hawaiian Philippine Co

    Uploaded by

    Krisel Montera
    The plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against the defendant for failing to deliver 400,000 gallons of molasses as agreed. The defendant argued it only agreed to 300,000 gallons and could provide an additional 100,000 gallons but made no promises. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages. The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court found that the contract only specified 300,000 gallons and the additional 100,000 was not a definite promise. Further, the defendant had the right to rescind the contract when the plaintiff failed to make a timely payment, but the delay was minor and the defendant waived this by continuing performance. However, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for extra costs incurred in purchasing

    Copyright:

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

    SONG FO & COMPANY vs. HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE CO.

    G.R. No. 23769 September 16, 1925

    FACTS: Plaintiff filed a complaint with two causes of action for breach of contract against
    the Defendant. Defendant asserted that since the plaintiff had defaulted in the payment
    for the molasses delivered to it by the defendant under the contract between the parties,
    the latter was compelled to cancel and rescind the said contract.

    The trial court ordered the defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a total of P35,317.93, with legal
    interest from the date of the complaint, and with costs.

    Defendant appealed, contending that the lower court erred in finding that Defendant had
    agreed to sell to the appellee 400,000, and not only 300,000, gallons of molasses.

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the defendant-seller agreed to sell to the plaintiff 400,000 gallons of
    molasses
    2. (ISSUE IN THE SYLLABUS) Whether defendant-seller had the right to rescind the
    contract of sale
    3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages

    RULING:

    1. No. The contract of the parties is in writing. It is found principally in the documents,
    Exhibits F and G. The Hawaiian-Philippine Co. agreed to deliver to Song Fo & Company
    300,000 gallons of molasses. The Hawaiian-Philippine Co. also believed it possible to
    accommodate Song Fo & Company by supplying the latter company with an extra
    100,000 gallons. But the language used with reference to the additional 100,000 gallons
    was not a definite promise, particularly: “this is possible and will do our best to let you
    have these extra 100,000 gallons during the next year xxx xxx xxx along with the 300,000,
    making 400,000 gallons in all.”

    2. No. Song Fo & Company was to pay the Hawaiian-Philippine Co. upon presentation of
    accounts at the end of each month. Song Fo & Company should have paid for the
    molasses delivered in December, 1922, and for which accounts were received by it on
    January 5, 1923, not later than January 31 of that year. Instead, payment was not made
    until February 20, 1923. All the rest was paid for either on time or ahead of time.

    The general rule is that rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach
    of the contract, but only for such breaches as are so substantial and fundamental as
    to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement. A delay in payment for
    a small quantity of molasses for some twenty days is not such a violation of an
    essential condition of the contract was warrants rescission for non-performance.
    Not only this, but the Hawaiian-Philippine Co. waived this condition when it arose by
    accepting payment of the overdue accounts and continuing with the contract.
    3. Yes. The plaintiff had to pay the Central Victorias Milling company one and one-half
    centavos a gallon more for the molasses than it would have had to pay the Hawaiian-
    Philippine Co. Translated into pesos and centavos, this meant a loss to the plaintiff of
    approximately P2,174.91. The plaintiff may have been put to greater cost in making the
    purchase of the molasses in the open market, we would concede under the first cause of
    action in round figures P3,000.

    As to the alleged lost profits on account of the breach of the contract, the only evidence
    in the record on this question is the stipulation of counsel to the effect that had Mr. Song
    Heng, the manager of Song Fo & Company, been called as a witness, he would have
    testified that the plaintiff would have realized a profit of P14,948.43, if the contract of had
    been fulfilled by the defendant. Indisputably, this statement falls far short of presenting
    proof on which to make a finding as to damages.

    You might also like