Case Digest (G.R. No. 23763)
Facts:
The Chinese American Bank of Commerce v. Mariano Uy Chaco Sons & Co., G.R. No. 23763, October 07, 1925, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-appellant The Chinese American Bank of Commerce alleged that on August 11, 1922 it sold to defendant Mariano Uy Chaco Sons & Co. four million (4,000,000) German marks at an agreed exchange of 30 centavos per 100 marks (P12,000), delivery to be made on or before December 31, 1923; the defendant paid P1,595.44 and left a balance of P10,404.56. The written contract (Exhibit A) expressly provided that should the beneficiaries not avail themselves of the total credit the bank would either deliver a demand draft on Berlin for the unused balance at the agreed rate or open a credit for that amount at defendant’s option. Plaintiff alleged it tendered a demand draft on Berlin for the unused balance on December 27, 1923, and demanded payment; defendant refused.The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts: the bank opened credits in favor of two German firms (Exhibits B, C); on February 7, 1923 drafts amounting to marks 531,815 were drawn and paid (for which defendant paid P1,595.44); the remaining marks were unused; the bank’s Manila office closed May 26, 1923; from February 7, 1923 the German beneficiaries refused to accept marks in payment (Exhibits D–G), preventing defendant from using the unused balance; correspondence between the parties and lawyers is in Exhibits H–P, including plaintiff’s demand of January 9, 1924 and defendant’s refusal January 10, 1924.
At trial the court (trial court) rendered judgment for the defendant. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court from that adverse judgment, assigning errors including the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the contract (Exhibit A) to be construed as an executed sale by which the defendant bought 4,000,000 marks and remained liable for the unpaid purchase price?
- Did the fact that German merchants refused to accept marks (so that the marks lost their utility or value for the defendant’s intended purpose) relieve the defendant of liability for the unpaid balance?
- Did plaintiff’s tender of a demand draft for the unused balance and its notice regarding the duration of the credit satisfy its contractual obligations so...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)