Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 401 views

    Bunge Vs Camenforte

    Uploaded by

    GaizeAngelPagaduan
    The plaintiffs brought action against the defendants to recover damages for the defendants' failure to deliver the agreed upon amount of copra by the specified time and conditions in their October 22, 1947 contract. After trial where both parties presented evidence, the lower court ordered the defendant company to pay damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, arguing their failure to fulfill the contract was due to force majeure since the copra was destroyed. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant's obligation was generic and not extinguished by the loss of copra from a particular location, as their duty was to deliver copra overall.

    Copyright:

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

    Bunge Vs Camenforte

    Uploaded by

    GaizeAngelPagaduan
    401 views2 pages
    The plaintiffs brought action against the defendants to recover damages for the defendants' failure to deliver the agreed upon amount of copra by the specified time and conditions in their October 22, 1947 contract. After trial where both parties presented evidence, the lower court ordered the defendant company to pay damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, arguing their failure to fulfill the contract was due to force majeure since the copra was destroyed. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant's obligation was generic and not extinguished by the loss of copra from a particular location, as their duty was to deliver copra overall.

    Original Description:

    Oblicon Case Digest

    Original Title

    Bunge vs Camenforte

    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 plaintiffs brought action against the defendants to recover damages for the defendants' failure to deliver the agreed upon amount of copra by the specified time and conditions in their October 22, 1947 contract. After trial where both parties presented evidence, the lower court ordered the defendant company to pay damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, arguing their failure to fulfill the contract was due to force majeure since the copra was destroyed. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant's obligation was generic and not extinguished by the loss of copra from a particular location, as their duty was to deliver copra overall.

    Copyright:

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

    Bunge Vs Camenforte

    Uploaded by

    GaizeAngelPagaduan
    The plaintiffs brought action against the defendants to recover damages for the defendants' failure to deliver the agreed upon amount of copra by the specified time and conditions in their October 22, 1947 contract. After trial where both parties presented evidence, the lower court ordered the defendant company to pay damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, arguing their failure to fulfill the contract was due to force majeure since the copra was destroyed. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant's obligation was generic and not extinguished by the loss of copra from a particular location, as their duty was to deliver copra overall.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-4440

    August 29, 1952

    BUNGE CORPORATION and UNIVERSAL COMMERCIAL AGENCIES, plaintiffs-appellees,


    vs.
    ELENA CAMENFORTE and COMPANY, doing business or trading under the name and
    style of Visayan Products Company, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
    Plaintiffs brought action against the defendants to recover certain damages they have allegedly
    sustained in view of the failure of the latter to deliver to the former the amount of Philippine
    copra which they had agreed to deliver within the time and under the conditions specified in the
    contract celebrated between them on October 22, 1947.
    After trial, which both parties presented their respective evidence, the court rendered decision
    ordering defendant Elena Camenforte & Company to pay to the plaintiffs. Defendants
    interposed the present appeal. Consequently, appellants now contend that the lower court erred
    in condemning them for damages despite the fact that their failure to fulfill the contract is due
    to force majeure.
    ISSUE:
    WON VISAYAN PRODUCT IS LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER COPRA EVEN IF LOST BY
    FORCE MAJEURE?
    RULING:
    It appearing that the obligation of appellant is to deliver copra in a generic sense, the obligation
    cannot be deemed extinguised by the destruction or disappearance of the copra stored in San
    Ramon, Samar. Their obligation subsists as long as that commodity is available. A generic
    obligation is not extinguished by the loss of a thing belonging to a particular genus. Genus
    nunquan perit.
    Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.
    Separate Opinions
    BENGZON, J., concurring:
    I concur. However I wish to add a few remarks.
    The copra was to be delivered at the Pacific Coast of the U.S. "during November/December
    1947." The sellers' duty to deliver matured at the end of December 1947. In the absence of
    special circumstances, failure of the sellers to comply with their obligation gave to buyer the
    right to damages based upon the price of Philippine copra at the end of December 1947 in the
    U.S. Pacific Coast. Such price, according to the decision not challenged by appellants was
    $260 per short ton. On that basis, the judgment for damages in the amount of P79,744 may be
    affirmed.

    You might also like