Scribd
Upload
161 views1 page

Macke Vs Camps

- Macke and Chandler sold goods worth 351.50 pesos to Camps' business, which was delivered to Camps' cafe. - The goods were ordered by Ricardo Flores, who represented himself as Camps' agent. - Flores partially paid but the balance was unpaid. He could not fully pay because Camps was away and he did not have funds. - Camps argued he did not order the goods so he was not responsible for the unpaid balance. - A lease contract showed Flores signed as the "managing agent", indicating he was Camps' agent.

Uploaded by

Ces David
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
161 views1 page

Macke Vs Camps

- Macke and Chandler sold goods worth 351.50 pesos to Camps' business, which was delivered to Camps' cafe. - The goods were ordered by Ricardo Flores, who represented himself as Camps' agent. - Flores partially paid but the balance was unpaid. He could not fully pay because Camps was away and he did not have funds. - Camps argued he did not order the goods so he was not responsible for the unpaid balance. - A lease contract showed Flores signed as the "managing agent", indicating he was Camps' agent.

Uploaded by

Ces David
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Macke vs Camps

 Macke and Chandler sold to Camps various bills of good amounting to P351.50 and delivered to
Camps' place "Washington Cafe".
 The goods were ordered by Ricardo Flores, who represented himself to be the agent of Camps.
 Flores partially paid Macke but the remaining balance remained unpaid.
 FLores cannot pay Macke because he does not have necessary funds on hand because his
principal, Camps, was in a prolonged visit in the provinces
 Camps contended that he did not ordered the goods, thus, he is not responsible to unpaid
balance of Flores.
 One of the evidence presented against Camps was the lease contract where Flores signed the
contract indicating next to his name that he is a "managing agent".

Issue:

WON Flores was an agent of Camps?

Held:

Yes.

The contract introduced in evidence sufficiently establishes the fact that the defendant was the owner
of business and of the bar, and the title of "managing agent" attached to the signature of Flores which
appears on that contract, together with the fact that, at the time the purchases in question were made,
Flores was apparently in charge of the business, performing the duties usually entrusted to managing
agent, leave little room for doubt that he was there as authorized agent of the defendant. One who
clothes another apparent authority as his agent, and holds him out to the public as such, can not be
permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent third
parties dealing with such person in good faith and in the following preassumptions or deductions, which
the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts, are deemed conclusive.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy