{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

The provision on the downpayment of p10000000 made no

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: ause they submitted only a cash voucher and not their official receipt; (c) the "Notice of Readiness" is written on a paper with the letterhead "Bacaltos Coal Mines" and the logo therein is the same as that appearing in their voucher; (d) the petitioners were benefited bythe payment because the real payee in the check is actually Bacaltos Coal Mines and since in the Authorization they authorized Savellon to collect receivables due or in arrears, the check was then properly delivered to Savellon; and, (e) if indeed Savellon had not been authorized or if indeed he exceeded his authority or if the Trip Charter Party was personal to him and the petitioners have nothing to do with it, then Savellon should have "bother[ed] to answer" the complaint and the petitioners should have filed "a cross­claim" against him. CA: affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial court. It held that: (a) the credentials of Savellon is not an issue since the petitioners impliedly admitted the agency while the ownership of the vessel was warranted on the face of the Trip Charter Party; (b) SMC was not negligent when it issued the check in the name of Savellon in trust for Bacaltos Coal Mines since the Authorization clearly provides that collectibles of the petitioners can be coursed through Savellon as the agent; (c) the Authorization includes the power to enter into the Trip Charter Party because the "five prerogatives" enumerated in the former is prefaced by the phrase "but not by way of limitation"; MR Denied. The paramount issue raised is whether Savellon was duly authorized by the petitioners to enter into the Trip Charter Party under and by virtue of said Authorization Issue: Whether Rene Savellon was authorized to enter into a trip charter party contract with private respondent inspite of its finding that such authority cannot be found in the four corners of the authorization Held: NO. There is absolutely nothing on the face of the Authorization that confers upon Savellon the authority to enter into any Trip Charter Party. SMC should have required its presentation to determine what it is and how it may...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online