Facts on the 12th of december 1900 the martinez

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: as made directly to the plaintiffs. Neither the head office nor Aragon appear to have made any distinction between the business done by Aragon and that done by the plaintiffs. x x x The fact that the defendant corporation carried the Legaspi account in the name of the general agent, Aragon, and carried no account with the plaintiffs, would seem to negative the contention that plaintiffs were simply merchants purchasing their good in Manila at wholesale and selling them locally on their own account." The pieces of evidence of note were the two letters (sent by defendant to plaintiff) presented by plaintiffs which the Court deemed "sufficient to show that the defendant was fully aware of plaintiffs' connection with the agency at Legaspi, and recognized them as agents of the company, and clearly did not consider them as independent merchants buying solely on their own account, but rather as subagents working under the supervision of the general agent, Aragon. The general agent did not consider plaintiffs as independent merchants, but rather as agents cooperating with him and working under his supervision. "The defendant carried no account whatever with the plaintiffs, and having entrusted the entire management of the Legaspi business to Aragon, it can not now come into court and repudiate the account confirmed by him, unless it can show that he acted beyond the scope of his authority in making the arrangement he did with the plaintiffs. x x x [T]he record does not disclose what were the precise terms of the arrangement made with the plaintiffs. The record does show however, that in many instances the plaintiffs were allowed commissions on the sales made by them, but whether or not these were in addition to other profits allowed them the record does not show." Lopez v. Seva, 69 Phil 311 (1940) (Spanish) ATIENZA Since this is Spanish and I can’t find the English version, I only used google translate and digest it in the way that I could understand it DOCTRINE: An agent can only appoint a substitute within the limits set to him by the principal FACTS: Ernesto Seva is an owner of a brokerage firm in Manila. Because he ha...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online