Title
Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware Co.
Case
G.R. No. 11491
Decision Date
Aug 23, 1918
Andres Quiroga sued Parsons Hardware for alleged breaches in an exclusive bed sales contract, claiming it was a commercial agency. Court ruled it was a purchase-sale agreement, affirming no implied obligations; Parsons prevailed.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 11491)

Facts:

Andres Quiroga v. Parsons Hardware Co., G.R. No. 11491, August 23, 1918, the Supreme Court En Banc, Avanceaa, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellant Andres Quiroga and the defendant-appellee (originally J. Parsons, later Parsons Hardware Co.) entered into a written contract on January 24, 1911, by which Quiroga purportedly granted the exclusive right to sell “Quiroga” beds in the Visayan Islands to J. Parsons. The agreement set out a number of detailed clauses governing prices, discounts, payment terms, transport costs, notice of price changes, exclusivity and territorial agency, advertising preference, and a ninety-day termination clause for an unlimited-term contract.

Quiroga sued, asserting three causes of action (only two of which are before this Court on appeal). Those causes alleged that the defendant had violated obligations that Quiroga characterized as arising from a commercial agency: (a) not to sell the beds at higher prices than invoiced; (b) to maintain an open establishment in Iloilo and to conduct the agency itself; (c) to keep the beds on public exhibition and to shoulder advertising expenses; and (d) to order the beds by the dozen. Quiroga’s theory was that the contract created an agency entitling him to commissions and imposing continuing duties on Parsons.

The court below entered judgment for the defendant; Quiroga appealed to the Supreme Court. The central question presented to this Court was whether the written agreement was a contract...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Was the contract between Andres Quiroga and J. Parsons / Parsons Hardware Co. a contract of commercial agency (commission) or a contract of purchase and sale?
  • If the contract was a purchase and sale, was the defendant liable for the breaches of the obligations Quiroga alleged (price restriction, maintaining an establishment/agency duties, exhibition and advertising oblig...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-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.