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.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 11491)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Contract Formation
    • On January 24, 1911, in Manila, Andrés Quiroga (plaintiff) and J. Parsons (party of the second part) executed a written contract for the exclusive sale of “Quiroga” beds in the Visayan Islands. Parsons Hardware Co. later succeeded to Parsons’s rights and obligations.
    • Key provisions of the contract:
(a) Article 1(A): Quiroga to furnish beds at his Manila prices less a 25% discount as “commission on sales”; Parsons to order by the dozen. (b) Article 1(B): Parsons to pay within sixty days of shipment. (c) Article 1(C): Quiroga bears inland transportation; Parsons bears freight, insurance, and unloading. (d) Article 1(D): 2% additional discount for prompt or cash payment upon request or choice. (e) Article 1(E): Fifteen days’ notice required for price alterations; pending orders enjoy favorable changes. (f) Article 1(F): Parsons binds not to sell any other beds. (g) Article 2: In return for Parsons’s advertising expenses, Quiroga grants Parsons right of first refusal for other island agencies. (h) Article 3: Parsons may establish branches where no exclusive agent exists, subject to approval. (i) Article 4: Unlimited term, terminable on ninety days’ notice.
  • Contested Performance and Pleadings
    • Quiroga sued Parsons Hardware Co. alleging two causes of action: breach of obligations “implied” in a commercial agency—for example, maintaining an open establishment in Iloilo, exhibiting and advertising beds, selling at invoiced prices, and ordering only by dozens.
    • Parsons Hardware Co. defended that the contract was one of purchase and sale, not an agency; under it Parsons was obliged to pay the agreed price regardless of sales, and the so-called “commissions” were mere discounts.

Issues:

  • Contract Characterization
    • Does the contract create a commercial agency relationship entitling Quiroga to alleged implied obligations?
    • Or is it a contract of purchase and sale under which Parsons Hardware Co. is simply a buyer obliged to pay the price regardless of resale?

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.