Title
Rosenstock vs. Burke
Case
G.R. No. 20732
Decision Date
Sep 26, 1924
Defendant owned a yacht; plaintiff negotiated purchase, paid for repairs, then withdrew. Court ruled no binding contract, plaintiff liable for repairs, no obligation to buy yacht.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 20732)

Key Dates

• 1920 – Acquisition of yacht by Burke in Australia
• Feb. 12, 1922 – Burke grants Elser a 30-day written option to buy at ₱120,000
• Mar. 6–23, 1922 – Elser charters and repairs yacht, sponsors a pleasure voyage
• Mar. 31, 1922 – Elser writes Burke that he can pay at most ₱70,000; Burke negotiates ₱80,000 deal with bank
• Apr. 3, 1922 – Elser’s letter (“Exhibit 1”) stipulates ₱80,000 purchase terms; accepted by Burke and Asia Bank
• Apr. 5–8, 1922 – Elser withdraws; Burke demands performance; suit ensues
• Sept. 26, 1924 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• Civil Code of the Philippines (Spanish Civil Code principles)
• Organic Acts governing property and contracts under U.S. sovereignty (no Philippine constitution in force)

Factual Background

Burke’s yacht was mortgaged to Asia Banking for ₱100,000 unpaid since 1921. Elser proposed to organize a yacht club, pay ₱120,000 (retaining ₱20,000 commission), and discharge the mortgage. Failing to resell immediately, Elser arranged a publicity cruise, advancing ₱6,972.21 for repairs, plus ₱1,730.84 owing to Cooper Company and ₱832.93 owed to himself. He used the yacht free of charge.

Initial Negotiations and Option

On Feb. 12, Burke offered Elser a 30-day option at ₱120,000 (P120k), open for acceptance within thirty days, pursuant to Elser’s yacht-club plan. No sale was concluded under that option.

Repairs, Voyage, and Financial Arrangements

Elser advanced repair funds to seaworthiness. He never formally accepted Burke’s ₱120,000 option. Post-voyage, Elser sought a ₱20,000 loan from Avery to replace the engine. Avery refused further credit.

April 3 Stipulation of Terms

At a meeting on Apr. 3, Elser directed his stenographer to draft and sign a letter stating he was “in position and … willing to entertain the purchase” of Bronzewing for ₱80,000, with ₱10,000 due in 60 days, the balance in ₱5,000 monthly installments at 9% interest, secured by ₱80,000 in stock. Burke and Avery endorsed the letter as “Proposition Accepted.”

Revocation, Demand, and Proceedings

On Apr. 5, Elser repudiated Exhibit 1, citing Avery’s refusal to fund the engine loan, and returned the yacht. On Apr. 8, Burke demanded performance under Exhibit 1. Elser sued for recovery of repair costs (₱6,139.28); Burke defended that repairs were quid pro quo for free use and counterclaimed for unpaid canvas costs (₱832.93) and performance of the sale (₱80,000 plus damages). Cooper Company intervened for ₱1,730.84. Trial court awarded repair sums to Elser and Cooper, and ordered Elser to perform Exhibit 1. Both sides appealed.

Issue: Nature of the April 3 Letter

Whether Elser’s letter of Apr. 3 was a definite, binding offer to purchase or merely an invitation to Burke (with bank consent) to formulate an offer, and thus whether it created an enforceable contract of sale. Additionally, whether Burke must pay Elser for repairs.

Analysis: Definite Offer or Mere Invitation

• Plain language: “willing to entertain the purchase” denotes deliberation, not present commitment.
• Elser’s own stenographer and an employee testified that Elser refused at Burke’s suggestion to substitute unequivocal offer language (“I offer to purchase…”).
• Elser’s prior conduct showed he intended resale profit and required external funding for an engine, making final purchase contingent.
• A definitive offer would use explicit phrases (“I offer,” “I agree to buy”), which Exhibit 1 lacks.
• Burke’s and Avery’s endorsements only signified acceptance of Elser






...continue reading

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