Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 149 views

    Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. vs. Singson (1955)

    Uploaded by

    eunice demaclid
    Pacific Vegetable Oil Corporation sued Angel Singzon for failing to deliver 300 tons of copra as agreed. Singzon originally agreed to sell and deliver 500 tons of copra to Pacific in August 1947. In a settlement, Singzon agreed to deliver 300 tons by February 1948 or pay damages of $10,000. Singzon failed to deliver the copra. The court dismissed the case, holding that Pacific did not have the ability to file the action as it did not obtain a license to transact business in the Philippines. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the transaction occurred in the U.S., so Pacific did not need a Philippine business license.

    Copyright:

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

    Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. vs. Singson (1955)

    Uploaded by

    eunice demaclid
    149 views1 page
    Pacific Vegetable Oil Corporation sued Angel Singzon for failing to deliver 300 tons of copra as agreed. Singzon originally agreed to sell and deliver 500 tons of copra to Pacific in August 1947. In a settlement, Singzon agreed to deliver 300 tons by February 1948 or pay damages of $10,000. Singzon failed to deliver the copra. The court dismissed the case, holding that Pacific did not have the ability to file the action as it did not obtain a license to transact business in the Philippines. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the transaction occurred in the U.S., so Pacific did not need a Philippine business license.

    Original Description:

    merchantile law

    Original Title

    29. Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. vs. Singson (1955)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Pacific Vegetable Oil Corporation sued Angel Singzon for failing to deliver 300 tons of copra as agreed. Singzon originally agreed to sell and deliver 500 tons of copra to Pacific in August 1947. In a settlement, Singzon agreed to deliver 300 tons by February 1948 or pay damages of $10,000. Singzon failed to deliver the copra. The court dismissed the case, holding that Pacific did not have the ability to file the action as it did not obtain a license to transact business in the Philippines. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the transaction occurred in the U.S., so Pacific did not need a Philippine business license.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    149 views1 page

    Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. vs. Singson (1955)

    Uploaded by

    eunice demaclid
    Pacific Vegetable Oil Corporation sued Angel Singzon for failing to deliver 300 tons of copra as agreed. Singzon originally agreed to sell and deliver 500 tons of copra to Pacific in August 1947. In a settlement, Singzon agreed to deliver 300 tons by February 1948 or pay damages of $10,000. Singzon failed to deliver the copra. The court dismissed the case, holding that Pacific did not have the ability to file the action as it did not obtain a license to transact business in the Philippines. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the transaction occurred in the U.S., so Pacific did not need a Philippine business license.

    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 1

    PacificVegetable Oil 

    Corporation v.Angel SingzonGR. No. L-7917 !nreporte" Ca#e$%act#&


    This is an action instituted by the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, against the defendant torec ov er t he su m o f P1 57 ,7 60 as d am ag es su ff ered by p lai nt if f as
    a con se qu en ce o f t he failure of the defendant to deliver 300 tons of copra  h i ch he sold and bound himself todeliver to the  plaintiff!"in g# on i n $u gu st 1% &7 ,
    a cti ng th ro ug h a bro' er in "a n (ra nc is co , s old to P ac ifi c 50 0 t o n s o f c o p r a f o r s h i p m e n t i n " e p t e m b e r a n d ) c t o b e r 1 % & 7 ! T h e
    a g r e e d p r i c e t o b e covered by an irrevocable letter of credit for the contract price! Thus, pursuant to this, the*an' of +alifornia, on behalf of Pacific, opened an
    irrevocable letter of credit  i th
    +hina* a n '   i n   t h e   P h i l i p p i n e s !   " i n g # o n   f a i l e d   t o   s h i p   t h e   5 0 0   t o n s   o f   c o p r a ,   b u t   u p o n n eg ot ia ti on t hrou gh
    t he bro' er, a con di ti on al a mi ca bl e se tt le me nt  a s a rriv ed a t u nd er  h i ch "ing#on promised to ship on (ebruary 1%&  , the amount of 300 tons of copra
    ti t hh e u n d e r s t a n d i n g   t h a t   i f   h e   e f f e c t u a l l y   s h i p   s a i d   3 0 0 t o n s   o f   c o p r a   n o t l a t e r t h a n (ebruary, the original contract  o u ld be
    considered cancelled! *ut that should he fail tos hip sai d 30 0  t on s, "in g# on sh all pa y   Pa cif ic -10 ,0 00  a s da ma ge s an d  s ha ll fu rt he rmo re  be obliged to
    fulfill all his obligations under original contract!"in g# on f ail ed to shi p an d d el ive r th e 3 00 to ns o f c op ra t o Pa ci fic a cco rd in g to th ei r  a gree me n t!
    T he re af te r, P aci fic d em an de d f ro m "in g# on t he pa ym en t of -1 0, 00 0 bu t h ef ai le d a nd re fu se d to shi p t he 50 0 t on s of co pra! $ s a re su lt of
    t he de fa ul t, Pa ci fic  a sforced to purchase copra from the  o rld mar'er and thus incurred additional e.penses!/ence, this action is filed by Pacific! "ing#on, in defense,
    filed a motion to dismiss on theg ro un d t ha t P aci fic  eg et ab le )il + orp!  Pa cif ic2 fa ile d t o ob ta in lic en se t o t ra ns ac t  business in the Philippines and
    consequently, it had no personality to file the action! T+d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n ! 4 t a l s o d e n i e d   ! / o  e v e r , t h e + o u r t o f $ p p e a l s r e v e r s e d
    a n d dis mi sse d t he cas e h ol din g t ha t P ac ifi c ha d n o p erso na li ty t o i nst it ut e t he pres en t cas ee ve n i f it a ft er  a r d s o bt ai ne d a lice ns e t o
    t ra ns ac t bu sin es s up on th e t he ory th at th is  belated act did not have the effect of curing the defect!
    '##(e&
     8 appellant transacted business in the Philippines in contemplation of la9
    )eci#ion&
     8o, it as transacted in the :"!4t appears from the facts that the copra in question as actually sold by the defendant toth e p lai nt if f in th e :" ! 4 t al so a pp ea rs
    t ha t t he co nt ra ct  as e nt ered int o i n th e : " by appellee;s bro'er and appellant;s representatives! 4t further appears that the payment of t he pric e  as t o
    b e m ad e at " an (ran ci sc o, +al if orni a, t hrou gh a le tt er o f cred it to be op en ed at t he *a n' of + ali fo rn ia ! $n d i th re sp ec t t o t he de liv ery o f
    c op ra , it li' e  ise ap pe ars t ha t t he pric e a gree d up on  as -1 &< p er < ,0 00 lbs !, c!i !f ! P aci fic + oa st ! Thi s means that the vendor as to pay not
    only the cost of the goods, but also the freight andi nsu ra nc e e. pe ns es , a nd , it  a s =u di cia lly in te rp ret ed , th is is ta 'e n t o i ndi ca te th at th ed el iv ery
    is t o b e m ad e a t t he po rt o f d es tin at io n! 4t is th eref o re cle at th at th e c on t

    You might also like