Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1918 > September 1918 Decisions > G.R. No. 13203 September 18, 1918 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. (LTD.) v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

038 Phil 602:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 13203. September 18, 1918. ]

BEHN, MEYER & CO. (LTD.) , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEODORO R. YANGCO, Defendant-Appellee.

Crossfield & O’Brien,, for Appellant.

Charles C. Cohn, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACTS OF SALE; PLACE OF DELIVERY. — Determination of the place of delivery always resolves itself into a question of fact

2. ID.; ID. — If the contract be silent as to the person or mode by which the goods are to be sent, delivery by the vendor to a common carrier in the usual and ordinary course of business, tranfers the property to the vendee.

3. ID., ID. - PAYMENT OF FREIGHT. — A specification in a contract relative to the payment of freight can be taken to indicate the intention of the parties in regard to the place of delivery. If the buyer is to pay the freight, it is reasonable to suppose that he does so because the goods become his at the point of shipment. On the other hand, if the seller is to pay the freight, the inference is equally strong that the duty of the seller is to have the goods transported to their ultimate destination and that title to property does not pass until the goods have reached their destination.

4. ID.; ID.; C. I. F." CONSTRUED. — The letters "c. i. f." found in British contracts stand for costs, insurance, and freight. They signify that the price fixed covers not only the cost of the goods, but the expense of freight and insurance to be paid by the seller. (Ireland v. Livingston, L. R., 5 H. L., 395.)

5. ID.; ID.; "F. O B." CONSTRUED. — In mercantile contracts of American origin; the letters "F. O. B.," standing for the words "Free on Board," are frequently used. The meaning is that the seller shall bear all expenses until the goods are delivered where they are to be "F. O. B." According as to whether the goods are to be delivered "F. O. B." at the point of shipment or at the point of destination determines the time when property passes.

6. ID.; ID. — Both of the terms "C. I. F." and "F. O. B." merely make rules of presumption which yield to proof of contrary intention. "The question, at last, is one of intent, to be ascertained by a consideration of all the circumstances." ("Benjamin on Sales,’ par. 329.)

7. ID., TIME OF DELIVERY. — The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Norrington v. Wright ([1885], 115 U. S. 188) can be noted.

8. ID.; PERFORMANCE. — The contract between the parties was or drums of caustic soda, 76 per cent "Carabao" brand, at the price of $9.75 per one hundred pounds, cost, Insurance, and freight included, to be shipped during March, 1916, to be delivered at Manila and paid for on delivery of the documents. The soda which the plaintiff offered to defendant was not of the Carabao brand. The merchandise was not shipped in March, 1915, but in April, 1916. The plaintiff failed to deliver at Manila the goods contracted for. Held: That the buyer may rescind the contract of sale because of a breach in substantial particulars going to the essence of the contract.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J. :


The first inquiry to be determined is what was the contract between the parties.

The memorandum agreement executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties to this action reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Contract No. 37.

MANILA, 7 de marzo, de 1916.

"Confirmamos haber vendido a Bazar Siglo XX, 80 drums Caustic Soda 76 per cent ’Carabao’ brand al precio de Dollar Gold Nine and 75/100 per 100-lbs., c. i. f Manila, pagadero against delivery of documents. Embarque March, 1916

’’Comprador Bazar Siglo XX

"de Teodoro R. Yangco

"J. Siquia

"Vendedores

"BEHN, MEYER & Co. (Ltd.)

"O. LOMBECK."

This contract of sale can be analyzed into three component parts.

l. SUBJECT MATTER AND CONSIDERATION.

Facts. — The contract provided for "80 drums Caustic Soda 76 per cent ’Carabao’ brand al precio de Dollar Gold Nine and 75/100 per 100-lbs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Resorting to the circumstances surrounding the agreement as we are permitted to do, in pursuance of this provision, the merchandise was shipped from New York on the steamship Chinese Prince. The steamship was detained by the British authorities at Penang, and part of the cargo, including seventy-one drums of caustic soda, was removed. Defendant refused to accept delivery of the remaining nine drums of soda on the ground that the goods were in bad order. Defendant also refused the optional offer of the plaintiff, of waiting for the remainder of the shipment until its arrival, or of accepting the substitution of seventy-one drums of caustic soda of similar grade from plaintiff’s stock. The plaintiff thereupon sold, for the account of the defendant, eighty drums of caustic soda from which there was realized the sum of P6,352.89. Deducting this sum from the selling price of P10,063.86, we have the amount claimed as damages for alleged breach of the contract.

Law. — It is sufficient to note that the specific merchandise was never tendered. The soda which the plaintiff offered to defendant was not of the "Carabao" brand, and the offer of drums of soda of another kind was not made within the time that a March shipment, according to another provision of the contract, would normally have been available.

2. PLACE OF DELIVERY.

Facts. — The contract provided for "c. i. f. Manila, pagadero against delivery of documents."cralaw virtua1aw library

Law. — Determination of the place of delivery always resolves itself into a question of fact. If the contract be silent as to the person or mode by which the goods are to be sent, delivery by the vendor to a common carrier, in the usual and ordinary course of business, transfers the property to the vendee. A specification in a contract relative to the payment of freight can be taken to indicate the intention of the parties in regard to the place of delivery. If the buyer is to pay the freight, it is reasonable to suppose that he does so because the goods become his at the point of shipment. On the other hand, if the seller is to pay the freight, the inference is equally strong that the duty of the seller is to have the goods transported to their ultimate destination and that title to property does not pass until the goods have reached their destination. (See Williston on Sales, pp. 406-08.)

The letters "c. i. f." found in British contracts stand for costs, insurance, and freight. They signify that the price fixed covers not only the cost of the goods, but the expense of freight and insurance to be paid by the seller (Ireland v. Livingston, L. R., 5 H. L., 395.) Our instant contract, in addition to the letters "c. i. f.," has the word following, "Manila." Under such a contract, an Australian case is authority for the proposition that no inference is permissible that a seller was bound to deliver at the point of destination. (Bowden v. Little, 4 Comm. [Australia],

In mercantile contracts of American origin, the letters F. O. B." standing for the words "Free on Board," are frequently used. The meaning is that the seller shall bear all expenses until the goods are delivered where they are to be "F. O. B." According as to whether the goods are to be delivered "F. O. B." at the point of shipment or at the point of destination determines the time when property passes.

Both of the terms "c. i. f." and "F. O. B." merely make rules of presumption which yield to proof of contrary intention. As Benjamin, in his work on Sales, well says "The question, at last, is one of intent, to be ascertained by a consideration of all the circumstances." ("Benjamin on Sales," par. 329.) For instance, in a case of Philippine origin, appealed to the United States Supreme Court, it was held that the sale was complete on shipment, though the contract was for goods "F. O. B. Manila," the place of destination, the other terms of the contract showing the intention to transfer the property. (United States v. R. P. Andrews & Co. [1907], 207 U. S., 229.)

With all due deference to the decision of the High Court of Australia, we believe that the word "Manila" in con junction with the letters "c. i. f." must mean that the contract price, covering costs, insurance, and freight, signifies that delivery was to be made at Manila. If the plaintiff company had seriously thought that the place of delivery was New York and not Manila, it would not have gone to the trouble of making fruitless attempts to substitute goods for the merchandise named in the contract, but would have permitted the entire loss of the shipment to fall upon the defendant. Under plaintiff’s hypothesis, the defendant would have been the absolute owner of the specific soda confiscated at Penang and would have been indebted for the contract price of the same.

This view is corroborated by the facts. The goods were not shipped nor consigned from New York to plaintiff. The bill of lading was for goods received from Neuss Hesslein & Co. The documents evidencing said shipment and symbolizing the property were sent by Neuss Hesslein & Co. to the Bank of the Philippine Islands with a draft upon Behn, Meyer & Co. and with instructions to deliver the same, and thus transfer the property to Behn, Meyer & Co. when and if Behn Meyer & Co. should pay the draft.

The place of delivery was Manila and plaintiff has not legally excused default in delivery of the specified merchandise at that place.

3. TIME OF DELIVERY.

Facts. — The contract provided for: "Embarque: March, 1916." The merchandise was in fact shipped from New York on the Steamship Chinese Prince on April 12, 1916.

Law. — The previous discussion makes a resolution of this point unprofitable, although the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Norrington v. Wright ([1885], 115 U. S., 188) can be read with profit. Appellant’s second and third assignments of error could, if necessary, be admitted, and still it could not recover.

THE CONTRACT.

To answer the inquiry with which we began this decision, the contract between the parties was for 80 drums of caustic soda, 76 per cent "Carabao" brand, at the price of $9.75 per one hundred pounds, cost, insurance, and freight included, to be shipped during March, 1916, to be delivered at Manila and paid for on delivery of the documents.

PERFORMANCE.

In resume, we find that the plaintiff has not proved the performance on its part of the conditions precedent in the contract. The warranty — the material promise — of the seller to the buyer has not been complied with. The buyer may therefore rescind the contract of sale because of a breach in substantial particulars going to the essence of the contract. As contemplated by article 1451 of the Civil Code, the vendee can demand the fulfilment of the contract, and this being shown to be impossible, is relieved of his obligation. There thus being sufficient ground for rescission, the defendant is not liable.

The judgment of the trial court ordering that the plaintiff take nothing by its action, without special finding as to costs is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street and Avanceña, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1918 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 12762 September 6, 1918 - FELIX RAMENTO v. CIRIACO SABLAYA, ET AL.

    038 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 14576 September 6, 1918 - IN RE: VICENTE SOTTO

    038 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 12605 September 7, 1918 - UY SOO LIM v. BENITO TAN UNCHUAN

    038 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 12208 September 9, 1918 - PEDRO SANTOS v. JULIAN SANTIAGO

    038 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 12209 September 9, 1918 - ISIDRA DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. MARIANO LIM

    038 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 13228 September 13, 1918 - WILLIAM OLLENDORFF v. IRA ABRAHAMSON

    038 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 13985 September 16, 1918 - VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    038 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 13203 September 18, 1918 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. (LTD.) v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    038 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 13392 September 18, 1918 - PAZ NATIVIDAD v. BERNARDO MARQUEZ

    038 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 12264 September 23, 1918 - DOMINGO BANATAO v. SALVADOR DABBAY, ET AL.

    038 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 13153 September 23, 1918 - SANTOS CARTAJENA v. ISAIAS LIJAUCO, ET AL.

    038 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 13799 September 23, 1918 - CATALINO BAUTISTA v. PAULINO FAJARDO

    038 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 14289 September 23, 1918 - GREGORIO LITUAÑA, ET AL. v. SEVERINO OLIVEROS

    038 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 14395 September 23, 1918 - MARIANO CABUSAO v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

    038 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11897 September 24, 1918 - J. F. RAMIREZ v. THE ORIENTALIST CO., ET AL.

    038 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 13151 September 24, 1918 - E. A. ENAGE v. La Razon Social "VDA. E HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO", ET AL.

    038 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 13990 September 24, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    038 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 13288 September 25, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN GINER CRUZ.

    038 Phil 677

  • G.R. Nos. 13841 & 14133 September 25, 1918 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN ABRION ET AL.

    038 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 13229 September 26, 1918 - JOSE FERNANDEZ v. THOMPSON & CO., ET AL.

    038 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 13818 September 26, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO MENDOZA

    038 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 13498 September 30, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CASTOR, ET AL.

    038 Phil 693