Minors 2 insane or demented persons 3 illiterates

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: t or lowest bidder, unless appears otherwise OPTION - option may be withdrawn anytime before acceptance is communicated but not when supported by a consideration other than purchase price: option money *Ang Yu v. CA (1994) states that a unilateral promise to buy or sell, if not supported by a distinct consideration, may be withdrawn but may not be done whimsically or arbitrarily; the right of the grantee here is damages and not specific performance; Equatorial v. Mayfair(264 SCRA 483) held that an option clause in order to be valid and enforceable must indicate the definite price at which the person granting the option is willing to sell, contract can be enforced and not only damages; Paranaque Kings V CA (1997) states that right of PERSONS WHO CANNOT GIVE CONSENT TO A CONTRACT: 1. Minors 2. Insane or demented persons 3. Illiterates/ deaf-mutes who do not know how to write 4. Intoxicated and under hypnotic spell 5. Art 1331 - person under mistake; mistake may deprive intelligence 6. Art 1338 - person induced by fraud (dolo causante) • NOTE: Dolus bonus (usual exaggerations in trade) are not in themselves fraudulent RULE ON CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY QuickTime™ and a MINORS TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed OIDABLE • GENERAL RULE: Vto see this picture. • EXCEPTIONS: a. Upon reaching age of majority – they ratify the same b. They were entered unto by a guardian and the court having jurisdiction had approved the same c. They were contracts for necessities such as food, but here the persons who are bound to give them support should pay therefor d. Minor is estopped for having misrepresented his age and misled the other party (when age is close to age of majority as in the Mercado v Espiritu and Sia Suan v Alcantara cases. *In the Sia Suan v Alcantara case, there is a strong dissent by J.Padilla to the effect that the minor cannot be estopped if he is too young to give consent; one that is too young to give consent is too young to be estopped. Subsequently, in Braganza v Villa-Abrille, the dissent became the ruling. Minors could not be estopped. DISQUA...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online