Scribd
Upload
137 views2 pages

Cadwallader & Co. v. Smith, Bell & Co-Castor

This document summarizes a court case from 1907 regarding the annulment of a contract between a lumber company and its agents for the sale of lumber piles. Specifically: - The lumber company hired agents to sell lumber piles shipped to Manila, with the agents receiving a commission. However, the agents concealed negotiations to sell some piles to the government at a higher price than reported to the company. - When the company agreed to a lower sale price not knowing of the higher offer, the court found the agents committed fraud, allowing annulment of the contract. - Upon annulment, the parties must be restored to their original positions with mutual restitution. Therefore, the agents could not keep their commission from

Uploaded by

Yna Novo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
137 views2 pages

Cadwallader & Co. v. Smith, Bell & Co-Castor

This document summarizes a court case from 1907 regarding the annulment of a contract between a lumber company and its agents for the sale of lumber piles. Specifically: - The lumber company hired agents to sell lumber piles shipped to Manila, with the agents receiving a commission. However, the agents concealed negotiations to sell some piles to the government at a higher price than reported to the company. - When the company agreed to a lower sale price not knowing of the higher offer, the court found the agents committed fraud, allowing annulment of the contract. - Upon annulment, the parties must be restored to their original positions with mutual restitution. Therefore, the agents could not keep their commission from

Uploaded by

Yna Novo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Jessette Amihope Castor BL5A

CADWALLADER & COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,


v.
SMITH, BELL & COMPANY and HENRY W. PEABODY & COMPANY,
DefendantsAppellees
G.R. No. L-3246
February 9, 1907

Doctrine: Upon annulment the parties should be restored to their original position by
mutual restitution.

TRACEY, J.

Facts:
In May 1902, the Pacific Export Lumber Company of Portland shipped upon the
steamer Quito five hundred and eighty-one (581) piles to the defendant, Henry W.
Peabody & Company, at Manila, on the sale of which before storage the consignees were
to receive a commission of one half of whatever sum was obtained over $15 for each pile
and 5 per cent of the price of the piles sold after storage. After the arrival of the steamer
on August 2, Peabody and Company wrote the agent of the Pacific Company at Shanghai
that for lack of a demand the piles would have to be sold at considerably less than $15
apiece; whereupon the company’s agent directed them to make the best possible offer for
the piles, in response to which on August 5 they telegraphed him an offer of $12 a piece
and was accepted by him. It afterwards appeared that on July 9 Peabody & Company had
entered into negotiations with the Insular Purchasing Agent for the sale for the piles at
$20/piece, resulting of August 4 in the sale to the Government of two hundred and
thirteen (213) piles at $19 each. More of them were afterwards sold to the Government at
the same figure and the remainder to other parties at carrying prices.

Issue:
Whether defendants’ are entitled to retain their commission under the annulled
contract.

Held:
No. It is plaint that in concealing from their principal the negotiations with the
Government, resulting in a sale of the piles at 19/piece and in misrepresenting the
condition of the market, the agents committed a breach of duty from which they should
benefit. The contract of sale to themselves thereby induced was founded on their fraud
and was subject to annulment by the aggrieved party. (Civil Code, articles 1265 and 1269.)
Upon annulment the parties should be restored to their original position by mutual
restitution. (Article 1303 and 1306.) Therefore the defendants are not entitled to retain
their commission realized upon the piles included under the contract so annulled. In
respect of the 213 piles, which at the time of the making of this contract on August 5 they
had already sold under the original agency, their commission should be allowed.

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