8/11/2019 11 Quiroga v. Parsons (1918)

1/2

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-11491 August 23, 1918

ANDRES QUIROGA, plaintiff-appellant,vs.PARSONS ARD!ARE CO., defendant-appellee.

Alfredo Chicote, Jose Arnaiz and Pascual B. Azanza for appellant.Crossfield & O'Brien for appellee.

A"ANCE#A, J. $

On Januar !", #$##, in this cit of %anila, a contract in the follo&in' tenor &as enteredinto b and bet&een the plaintiff, as part of the first part, and J. Parsons (to &hoseri'hts and obli'ations the present defendant later subro'ated itself), as part of thesecond part*

CON+RAC+ E EC +E B/ AN BE+0EEN AN RE1 2 3RO4A AN J. PAR1ON1,BO+5 MERC5AN+1 E1+AB6315E 3N MAN36A, 7OR +5E E C6 138E 1A6E O792 3RO4A9 BE 1 3N +5E 831A/AN 316AN 1.

AR+3C6E #. on Andres 2uiro'a 'rants the e:clusive ri'ht to sell his beds in the8isa an 3slands to J. Parsons under the follo&in' conditions*

(A) Mr. 2uiro'a shall furnish beds of his %anufacture to Mr. Parsons for the latter;sestablish%ent in 3loilo, and shall invoice the% at the sa%e price he has fi:ed for sales,in Manila, and, in the invoices, shall %a and Mr. Parsons shall order the bedsb the do?en, &hether of the sa%e or of different st les.

(B) Mr. Parsons binds hi%self to pa Mr. 2uiro'a for the beds received, &ithin a periodof si:t da s fro% the date of their ship%ent.

(C) +he e:penses for transportation and ship%ent shall be borne b M. 2uiro'a, andthe frei'ht, insurance, and cost of unloadin' fro% the vessel at the point &here thebeds are received, shall be paid b Mr. Parsons.

( ) 3f, before an invoice falls due, Mr. 2uiro'a should re@uest its pa %ent, saidpa %ent &hen %ade shall be considered as a pro%pt pa %ent, and as such adeduction of ! per cent shall be %ade fro% the a%ount of the invoice.

+he sa%e discount shall be %ade on the a%ount of an invoice &hich Mr. Parsons %adee% convenient to pa in cash.

(E) Mr. 2uiro'a binds hi%self to 'ive notice at least fifteen da s before hand of analteration in price &hich he %a plan to %a to have an open establish%ent in 3loilo> itself toconduct the a'enc > to and to order the beds b the do?en and in noother %anner. As %a be seen, &ith t he e:ception of the obli'ation on the part of thedefendant to order the beds b the do?en and in no other %anner, none of theobli'ations i%puted to the defendant in the t&o causes of action are e:pressl set forthin the contract. But the plaintiff alle'ed that the defendant &as his a'ent for the sale ofhis beds in 3loilo, and that said obli'ations are i%plied in a contract of co%%erciala'enc . +he &hole @uestion, therefore, reduced itself to a deter%ination as to &hether

1

8/11/2019 11 Quiroga v. Parsons (1918)

2/2