Title
Behn, Meyer and Co. vs. Yangco
Case
G.R. No. 13203
Decision Date
Sep 18, 1918
Plaintiff failed to deliver specified goods on time and to the agreed location, justifying defendant's contract rescission; damages denied.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 13203)

Facts:

  1. Subject Matter and Consideration

    • The contract between Behn, Meyer & Co. (plaintiff) and Teodoro R. Yangco (defendant) involved the sale of "80 drums Caustic Soda 76 per cent 'Carabao' brand" at a price of $9.75 per 100 pounds, cost, insurance, and freight (c.i.f.) included, to be shipped in March 1916.
    • The merchandise was shipped from New York on the steamship Chinese Prince but was detained by British authorities at Penang, where 71 drums were confiscated.
    • The defendant refused to accept the remaining 9 drums, claiming they were in bad order. The plaintiff offered to substitute the confiscated drums with similar-grade caustic soda from their stock, but the defendant rejected this offer.
    • The plaintiff subsequently sold 80 drums of caustic soda on the defendant's account, realizing P6,352.89, leaving a balance of P3,710.97 as damages claimed for breach of contract.
  2. Place of Delivery

    • The contract specified "c.i.f. Manila," meaning the seller was responsible for costs, insurance, and freight to Manila.
    • The plaintiff argued that delivery was to be made in New York, but the court found that the inclusion of "Manila" in the contract indicated that delivery was to be made in Manila.
    • The bill of lading and other documents showed that the goods were consigned to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, with instructions to transfer ownership to the plaintiff upon payment, further supporting the conclusion that delivery was to be made in Manila.
  3. Time of Delivery

    • The contract stipulated shipment in March 1916, but the goods were shipped on April 12, 1916.
    • The delay in shipment was a breach of the contract terms, which required shipment within the specified timeframe.

Issue:

  1. Whether the plaintiff fulfilled its contractual obligations, including the delivery of the specified "Carabao" brand caustic soda within the agreed timeframe and place.
  2. Whether the defendant was justified in refusing to accept the goods and rescinding the contract due to the plaintiff's failure to perform its obligations.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the alleged breach of contract by the defendant.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.