Title
Ong Jang Chuan vs. Wise and Co., Ltd.
Case
G.R. No. 10907
Decision Date
Jan 29, 1916
Ong Jang Chuan sued Wise & Co. for breach of contract over undelivered flour due to Australian export ban; court ruled contract unperfected, held Wise & Co. liable for damages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 10907)

Facts:

Ong Jang Chuan v. Wise & Co. (Ltd.), G.R. No. 10907, January 29, 1916, Supreme Court, Trent, J., writing for the Court.

Plaintiff-appellee Ong Jang Chuan sued defendant-appellant Wise & Co. (Ltd.) for damages for breach of a contract dated 29 July 1914 under which Wise & Co. agreed to sell 1,000 sacks of “Mano” brand flour to Ong at P11.05 per barrel, with 500 sacks to be delivered in September and 500 in October; payment was to be within 30 days from delivery. No deliveries were ever made.

The Court of First Instance of Manila found that Wise & Co. failed to perform because the “Mano” flour had to come from Australia and the Australian government, as a war measure, prohibited the exportation of flour; Wise & Co. therefore lacked sufficient stock to deliver. The trial court awarded plaintiff P1,237.50, plus interest and costs, as damages for breach of contract.

Wise & Co. appealed, assigning three alleged errors: (1) the contract was a perfected sale rather than an agreement to sell; (2) nonperformance was excused by a fortuitous event (the Australian export prohibition); and (3) the damages awarded were improper. In its printed brief before the Supreme Court the appellant argued mainly that the document was a sale subject to the law on fortuitous events and that the export ban excused performance. The Supreme Court limited the inquiry to whether the contract constituted a perfected sale and considered precedent on when a sale is perfecte...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Was the contract between Ong Jang Chuan and Wise & Co. (Ltd.) a perfected sale (a sale in which the thing sold was physically segregated) or an executory agreement to sell?
  • If the sale was not perfected, is Wise & Co. excused from liability by reason of a fortuitous event (the Australian government’s prohibition on exportation)?
  • Was the trial court’s award of P1,237.50 (plus interest and cos...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.