Scribd
Upload
5 views4 pages

RECITATION-OBLICON

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's claim regarding the essence of time in a contract of sale, stating that no delay occurred as there was no demand made by the respondent for delivery. The court found no evidence of cancellation of orders and deemed the delivery of cylinder liners reasonable. Ultimately, the court ruled that the interpretation of the contract terms should reflect the clear intentions of the parties involved.

Uploaded by

benjamin ladesma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views4 pages

RECITATION-OBLICON

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's claim regarding the essence of time in a contract of sale, stating that no delay occurred as there was no demand made by the respondent for delivery. The court found no evidence of cancellation of orders and deemed the delivery of cylinder liners reasonable. Ultimately, the court ruled that the interpretation of the contract terms should reflect the clear intentions of the parties involved.

Uploaded by

benjamin ladesma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000
CA RULINGS:

The Court of Appeals brushed aside the petitioner’s claim that time was of
the essence in the contract of sale between the parties herein because a
significant period of time had lapsed between respondent's offer and the
issuance by petitioner of its purchase orders.

The Court of Appeals also held that the respondent could not have incurred
delay in the delivery of cylinder liners as no demand, judicial or extrajudicial,
was made by respondent upon petitioner in contravention of the express
provision of Article 1169 of the Civil Code which provides:

Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the
obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their
obligation.

Likewise, the appellate court concluded that there was no evidence of the
alleged cancellation of orders by petitioner and that the delivery of the
cylinder liners on 20 April 1990 was reasonable under the circumstances.

ISSUE: Was there late delivery of the subjects of the contract of sale to
justify petitioner to disregard the terms of the contract considering that time
was of the essence thereof?

HELD:

In determining whether time is of the essence in a contract, the ultimate


criterion is the actual or apparent intention of the parties and before time
may be so regarded by a court, there must be sufficient manifestation, either
in the contract itself or the surrounding circumstances of that intention.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:

Petitioner insists that although its purchase orders did not specify the dates
when the cylinder liners were supposed to be delivered, nevertheless,
respondent should abide by the term of delivery appearing on the quotation
it submitted to petitioner.

Petitioner theorizes that the quotation embodied the offer from respondent
while the purchase order represented its (petitioner's) acceptance of the
proposed terms of the contract of sale.31 Thus, petitioner is of the view
that these two documents "cannot be taken separately as if there
were two distinct contracts.

Court decision:

The court held that petitioner’s contention is bereft of merit.

The SC said that It is a cardinal rule in interpretation of contracts that if the


terms thereof are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning shall control. However, in order to
ascertain the intention of the parties, their contemporaneous and
subsequent acts should be considered.

You might also like