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 Summary (G.R. No. 11491)

Contract Formation and Terms

On January 24, 1911, Quiroga and Parsons entered into an exclusive-distribution agreement for “Quiroga” beds in the Visayan Islands. The agreement provided that Quiroga would invoice beds at Manila prices less a 25% discount as Parsons’s commission. Parsons was to order by the dozen, pay within sixty days of shipment, and bear inland freight, insurance, and unloading costs. Quiroga would cover transportation to port and grant a 2% discount for accelerated or cash payments. Price adjustments required fifteen days’ notice, benefiting Parsons on any price decrease but preserving locked‐in prices on increases for existing orders. Parsons agreed to sole representation, advertising expenses, and potential expansion rights under Articles 2 and 3. The contract was unlimited in duration but terminable by ninety days’ prior notice.

Issues Presented

Quiroga sued Parsons for breach of several obligations he characterized as agency duties: maintaining an open Iloilo establishment, keeping beds on public display, ordering only by the dozen, paying advertising costs, and refraining from selling at prices above invoice. The sole legal question was whether Parsons’s role was that of purchaser or sales agent. If an agent, Parsons owed implied duties of commercial representation; if a purchaser, Parsons owed only the obligations expressly stated.

Classification of Contract: Purchase and Sale vs. Agency

Contract classification depends on essential clauses reflecting its cause and subject matter. The agreement obliged Quiroga to supply beds and Parsons to pay stipulated prices within defined terms, with discounts for prompt payment. Those reciprocal obligations—delivery of goods against payment—characterize a contract of sale. Under the law, an agency contract would obligate the agent to deliver sale proceeds to the principal and return unsold goods, which Parsons did not do.

Examination of Contractual Clauses

A detailed clause-by-clause review revealed no express agency obligations. Clause A’s “commission on sales” was defined as a discount on the invoice price. The terms on payment, pricing notice, and territorial exclusivity were fully consistent with a sale contract, not an agency arrangement. References to “agency” and “exclusive agent” in Articles 2 and 3 merely described Parsons’s territorial market rights, not a contractual mandate to act on Quiroga’s behalf.

Testimony and Extrinsic Evidence

Quiroga relied on testimony from Ernesto Vidal, former Parsons vice-president, who claimed to have drafted the contract as an agency agreement. The court emphasized that a contract’s legal nature is determined by its terms, not the drafter’s subjective intent. Parsons offered conflicting testimony from a corporate director who drafted the agreement. Even accepting Vidal’s subjective belief, the contract’s clear features created a sale, not an agency.

Performance, Waiver, and Interpretati

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.