Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Toyota Shaw Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    da_sein32
    Luna Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Lite Ace from Toyota Shaw by June 17th for a family trip. He paid a P100,000 downpayment and was given a document signed by a Toyota sales representative confirming delivery by June 17th. However, on June 17th Toyota did not deliver the vehicle. Toyota refunded the downpayment but claimed the credit application was denied. Sosa sued for damages. The Supreme Court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale, as the document was an agreement between individuals, not Toyota. It did not specify Toyota's obligation to transfer ownership or Sosa's obligation to pay a certain price. The non-delivery did not cause legal damages.

    Copyright:

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

    Toyota Shaw Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    da_sein32
    78 views2 pages
    Luna Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Lite Ace from Toyota Shaw by June 17th for a family trip. He paid a P100,000 downpayment and was given a document signed by a Toyota sales representative confirming delivery by June 17th. However, on June 17th Toyota did not deliver the vehicle. Toyota refunded the downpayment but claimed the credit application was denied. Sosa sued for damages. The Supreme Court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale, as the document was an agreement between individuals, not Toyota. It did not specify Toyota's obligation to transfer ownership or Sosa's obligation to pay a certain price. The non-delivery did not cause legal damages.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Toyota Shaw vs CA Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Luna Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Lite Ace from Toyota Shaw by June 17th for a family trip. He paid a P100,000 downpayment and was given a document signed by a Toyota sales representative confirming delivery by June 17th. However, on June 17th Toyota did not deliver the vehicle. Toyota refunded the downpayment but claimed the credit application was denied. Sosa sued for damages. The Supreme Court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale, as the document was an agreement between individuals, not Toyota. It did not specify Toyota's obligation to transfer ownership or Sosa's obligation to pay a certain price. The non-delivery did not cause legal damages.

    Copyright:

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

    Toyota Shaw Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    da_sein32
    Luna Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Lite Ace from Toyota Shaw by June 17th for a family trip. He paid a P100,000 downpayment and was given a document signed by a Toyota sales representative confirming delivery by June 17th. However, on June 17th Toyota did not deliver the vehicle. Toyota refunded the downpayment but claimed the credit application was denied. Sosa sued for damages. The Supreme Court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale, as the document was an agreement between individuals, not Toyota. It did not specify Toyota's obligation to transfer ownership or Sosa's obligation to pay a certain price. The non-delivery did not cause legal damages.

    Copyright:

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

    Toyota Shaw Inc. vs.

    Court of Appeals, and Sosa


    244 SCRA 320
    May 1995

    FACTS:

    Luna L. Sosa and his son, Gilbert, went to purchase a yellow Toyota Lite Ace from the
    Toyota office at Shaw Boulevard, Pasig (petitioner Toyota) on June 14, 1989 where
    they met Popong Bernardo who was a sales representative of said branch. Sosa
    emphasized that he needed the car not later than June 17, 1989 because he, his
    family, and a balikbayan guest would be using it on June 18 to go home to Marinduque
    where he will celebrate his birthday on June 19. Bernardo assured Sosa that a unit
    would be ready for pick up on June 17 at 10:00 in the morning, and signed the
    "Agreements Between Mr. Sosa & Popong Bernardo of Toyota Shaw, Inc., a document
    which did not mention anything about the full purchase price and the manner the
    installments were to be paid. Sosa and Gilbert delivered the down payment of
    P100,000.00 on June 15, 1989 and Bernardo accomplished a printed Vehicle Sales
    Proposal (VSP) No. 928 which showed Sosas full name and home address, that
    payment is by "installment," to be financed by "B.A.," and that the "BALANCE TO BE
    FINANCED" is "P274,137.00", but the spaces provided for "Delivery Terms" were not
    filled-up.

    When June 17 came, however, petitioner Toyota did not deliver the Lite Ace. Hence,
    Sosa asked that his down payment be refunded and petitioner Toyota issued also on
    June 17 a Far East Bank check for the full amount of P100,000.00, the receipt of
    which was shown by a check voucher of Toyota, which Sosa signed with the
    reservation, "without prejudice to our future claims for damages." Petitioner Toyota
    contended that the B.A. Finance disapproved Sosas the credit financing application
    and further alleged that a particular unit had already been reserved and earmarked
    for Sosa but could not be released due to the uncertainty of payment of the balance
    of the purchase price. Toyota then gave Sosa the option to purchase the unit by
    paying the full purchase price in cash but Sosa refused.

    The trial court found that there was a valid perfected contract of sale between Sosa
    and Toyota which bound the latter to deliver the vehicle and that Toyota acted in bad
    faith in selling to another the unit already reserved for Sosa, and the Court of Appeals
    affirmed the said decision.

    ISSUE:

    Was there a perfected contract of sale between respondent Sosa and petitioner
    Toyota?

    COURT RULING:

    The Supreme Court granted Toyotas petition and dismissed Sosas complaint for
    damages because the document entitled Agreements Between Mr. Sosa & Popong
    Bernardo of Toyota Shaw, Inc., was not a perfected contract of sale, but merely an
    agreement between Mr. Sosa and Bernardo as private individuals and not between Mr.
    Sosa and Toyota as parties to a contract.

    There was no indication in the said document of any obligation on the part of Toyota
    to transfer ownership of a determinate thing to Sosa and neither was there a
    correlative obligation on the part of the latter to pay therefor a price certain. The
    provision on the downpayment of P100,000.00 made no specific reference to a sale of
    a vehicle. If it was intended for a contract of sale, it could only refer to a sale on
    installment basis, as VSP No.928 executed on June 15, 1989 confirmed. The VSP also
    created no demandable right in favor of Sosa for the delivery of the vehicle to him,
    and its non-delivery did not cause any legally indemnifiable injury.

    You might also like