Scribd
Upload
249 views1 page

Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware Digest

The document summarizes a court case that determined the nature of a contract between Quiroga and Parsons Hardware. The court ruled that the contract was one of sale, not agency, for three reasons: 1) Payment was due from Parsons within 60 days regardless of whether they had sold the beds. This obligation to pay the price is characteristic of a sale, not an agency. 2) In a contract of agency, the agent does not pay for the items but instead returns any unsold goods and passes the sale price onto the principal. This was not the case in the contract. 3) None of the clauses in the contract necessarily convey the idea of an agency. The word "agency" referred only to Parsons being

Uploaded by

jp Hidalgo
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
249 views1 page

Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware Digest

The document summarizes a court case that determined the nature of a contract between Quiroga and Parsons Hardware. The court ruled that the contract was one of sale, not agency, for three reasons: 1) Payment was due from Parsons within 60 days regardless of whether they had sold the beds. This obligation to pay the price is characteristic of a sale, not an agency. 2) In a contract of agency, the agent does not pay for the items but instead returns any unsold goods and passes the sale price onto the principal. This was not the case in the contract. 3) None of the clauses in the contract necessarily convey the idea of an agency. The word "agency" referred only to Parsons being

Uploaded by

jp Hidalgo
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware (G.R. No. L-11491 August 23, 1918) Was it a contract of agency or a contract of sale?

CONTRACT OF SALE. Payment was to be made at the end of sixty days, or before, at the plaintiffs request, or in cash, if the defendant so preferred, and in these last two cases an additional discount was to be allowed for prompt payment. These are precisely the essential features of a contract of purchase and sale. There was the obligation on the part of the plaintiff to supply the beds, and, on the part of the defendant, to pay their price. These features exclude the legal conception of an agency or order to sell whereby the mandatory or agent received the thing to sell it, and does not pay its price, but delivers to the principal the price he obtains from the sale of the thing to a third person, and if he does not succeed in selling it, he returns it. By virtue of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the latter, on receiving the beds, was necessarily obliged to pay their price within the term fixed, without any other consideration and regardless as to whether he had or had not sold the beds. Not a single one of these clauses necessarily conveys the idea of an agency. The words commission on sales used in clause (A) of article 1 mean nothing else, as stated in the contract itself, than a mere discount on the invoice price. The word agency, also used in articles 2 and 3, only expresses that the defendant was the only one that could sell the plaintiffs beds in the Visayan Islands. With regard to the remaining clauses, the least that can be said is that they are not incompatible with the contract of purchase and sale.

You might also like