Scribd
Upload
1K views

Arrieta Vs Natl Rice and Corn Corp

This case summary involves a contract dispute between Paz Arrieta and the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) over the supply of 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice. Arrieta won the public bidding and contract to supply the rice at $203 per metric ton. However, NARIC failed to timely open a letter of credit as required by the contract, resulting in Arrieta's supplier in Burma cancelling the allocation and forfeiting her 5% deposit of approximately $200,000. The court ruled that NARIC was liable for damages, as one who assumes a contractual obligation and fails to perform due to inability to meet conditions, like opening a letter of credit, that they

Uploaded by

khayis_bels
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views

Arrieta Vs Natl Rice and Corn Corp

This case summary involves a contract dispute between Paz Arrieta and the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) over the supply of 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice. Arrieta won the public bidding and contract to supply the rice at $203 per metric ton. However, NARIC failed to timely open a letter of credit as required by the contract, resulting in Arrieta's supplier in Burma cancelling the allocation and forfeiting her 5% deposit of approximately $200,000. The court ruled that NARIC was liable for damages, as one who assumes a contractual obligation and fails to perform due to inability to meet conditions, like opening a letter of credit, that they

Uploaded by

khayis_bels
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ARRIETA VS.

NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION


GR L-15645 January 31, 1964
Regala, J.:

FACTS:

On May 19, 1952, plaintiff-appellee Mrs. Paz Arrieta participated in a public bidding
called by NARIC for the supply of 20,000 metric tons of Burmese rice. As her bid of
$203.00 per metric ton was the lowest, she was awarded he contract for the same. On
July 1, 1952,Arrieta and NARIC entered into Contract of Sale of Rice under the term
of which the former obligated herself to deliver to the latter 20,000 metric tons of
Burmese rice at $203.00 per metric ton. In turn, NARIC committed itself to pay for
the imported rice by means of an irrevocable,confirmed and assignable letter of
credit in US currency in favor of Arrieta and/or supplier in Burma, immediately.
However, it was only on July 30, 1952 that NARIC took the first step to open a letter
of credit by forwarding to the PNB its application for Commercial Letter of Credit.On
the same day, Arrieta, thru counsel, advised NARIC ofthe extreme necessity for the
opening of the letter of credit since she had by then made a tender to her supplier in
Rangoon, Burma equivalent to 5% of the F.O.B. price of 20, 000 tons at $180.70 and
in compliance with the regulations in Rangoon, this 5% will be confiscated if the
required letter of credit is not received by them before August 4, 1952.On August 4,
PNB informed NARIC that its application for a letter of credit has been approved by
the Board of Directors with the condition that 50% marginal cash deposit be paid and
that drafts to be paid upon presentment. It turned out that NARIC was not in financial
position to meet the condition. As a result of the delay, the allocation of Arrietas
supplier in Rangoon was cancelled and the 5% deposit amounting to 524 kyats or
approximately P200,000 was forfeited.

ISSUE: Was NARIC liable for damages?

RULING:

Yes. One who assumes a contractual obligation and fails to perform the same on
account of his inability to meet certain bank which inability he knew and was aware
of when he entered into contract, should be held liable indamages for breach of
contract.Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, not only debtors guilty of fraud,
negligence or default but also debtor of every, in general, who fails in the performance
of his obligations is bound to indemnify for the losses and damages caused thereby.

You might also like