Sunday, July 9, 2023

Case Digest: Meads vs. Land Settlement and Development Corporation, 98 Phil. 119

Meads vs. Land Settlement and Development Corporation, 98 Phil. 119

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Against plaintiff’s original complaint for specific performance of a contract of barter, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that his offer to exchange his sawmill equipment and spare parts for some surplus used tractors belonging to the defendant, was accepted thereby creating a legal and binding contract of barter, but that defendant later refused to comply with the contract. The trial court directed plaintiff to exhibit the writing in which the allegation or claim of acceptance was based; and the complaint was amended and to it was attached and made part thereof the written offer made by plaintiff and the written supposed acceptance of said offer.

ISSUE

Whether or not the defendant definitely accepts the offer of plaintiff.

RULING

No.

Under the law (Art 1319, NCC), consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer. Acceptance made by letter or telegram does not bind the offerer except from the time it came to his knowledge. The contract, in such a case, is presumed to have been entered into in the place where the offer was made.

In this case, SC ruled that the phrase "willing to accept" does not mean acceptance. It merely signifies that the defendant was disposed to accept or was agreeable to the proposition or offer, in principle, but that other considerations still remained before a contract of barter was perfected. Surely, before definitely agreeing to the barter or exchange, the defendant would want first to examine the sawmill equipment offered for exchange, especially since it is secondhand, through according to plaintiff, only slightly used, and perhaps would need overhauling and extensive repairs

No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...