7/31/2019 Sales for June 20
1/1
QUIROGA V PARSONS
Sale of Quiroga beds to J Parsons who is also a merchant. The
contract grantsexclusive right for Parsons to sell in Iloilo. With
an allowance of 25% of theinvoiced prices as commission on the
sale. Parsons should buy by the dozen.Payment will we 60 days from
delivery. Trasnport shall be born by Quiroga,freight, insurance and
unloading by Parsons. If payment is demanded before
the invoice is due, there will be 2% deduction. There will be 15
day notice forchanges in price. Parsons binds himself not to sell
any other brand of beds.Parsons has exclusive agency
The case was brough to court bec: defendant violated the
following obligations:not to sell the beds at higher prices than
those of the invoices; to have an openestablishment in Iloilo;
itself to conduct the agency; to keep the beds on publicexhibition,
and to pay for the advertisement expenses for the same; and toorder
the beds by the dozen and in no other manner
ISSUE: WON Parsons by reason of the contract was a purchaser or
an agent for thesale of his beds
SC: The subject matter is that the plaintiff was to furnish
Parsons with the beds whichParsons might order at the price
stipulated and pay as stipulated.-The price was determined by
Quiroga with a discount-There was an obligation on Quiroga to
supply the beds and for Parsons to pay.-This was not an agency
because Parsons did not receive the thing, not pay its prceand
deliver it to a principal who pays and wht he receives will be
given to Quiroga andif he doesnt sell the bed, he will return- The
contract is for purchase and sale-none of the provisions of the
contract convey an idea of agency.-the word commission on sales is
a mere DISCOUNT.-the term agency as used in the contract only meant
that Parsons was the only onewho could sell the plaintiffs
bed-Quirogas witness vs Parsons sued the latters company-Quiroga
tried to prove that Parsons returned the beds he could not sell-The
contract is clear, no need to interpret as per the consequent acts
of the parties
HELD: IFO Parsons
PUYAT V ARCOFacts: Arco brought action v Puyat in CFI Manila for
reimbursement for amount itoverpaid. Arco bought sound repro
equipment from Petitioner which came from starrpian, usa-Salmon and
Coulette (Arco) and Gil Puyat and Santos (puyat) negotiated for the
sale.
Payment + 10% commission + freight etc- At the expnse of Arco
Puyat sent cable to Starr inquiring about the equipment andquote
without discount-Starr replied: $1700, but Puyat did not show the
cable reply-equipment arrived, 1700 + 10% was paid-the ff year,
another order was made for another sound repro equip n the same
terms
