(5)GREEN VALLEY V. IAC In an agency to sell, the agent is liable to pay the principal for goods sold by the agent without the principal’s consent. The commission agentcannot without the express or implied consent of the principal, sell on credit. Should he do so, the principal may demand from him payment in cash, but the commission agent shall be entitled to any interest or benefit, which may result from such sale. FACTS: In 1969, GREEN VALEY POULTRY AND ALLIED PRODUCTS entered into a letter agreement with SQUIBB & SONS PHILIPPINE CORPORATION. The details of the agreement state that Green Valley will be the non-exclusive distributor of the products of Squibb Veterinary Products. As its distributor Green Valley is entitled to 10% discount on Squibb’s whole sale price and catalogue price. Green Valley is also limited to selling Squibb’s products to central and northern Luzon. Payment for purchases from Squibb will be due 60 days from date of invoice, etc. For goods delivered to Green Valley but unpaid, Squibb filed a suit to collect. Squibb argues that their relationship with Green Valley is a mere contract of sale as evidenced by the stipulation that Green Valley was obligated to pay for the goods received upon the expiration of the 60-day credit period. Green Valley counters that the relationship between itself and Squibb is that of an agency to sell. ISSUE: W/N Green Valley is an agent of Squibb. RULING: Whether viewed as an agency to sell or as a contract of sale GREEN VALLEY is liable to Squibb for the unpaid products. If it is a contract of sale then the Green Valley is liable by just merely enforcing the clear words of the contract. If it is an agency then Green Valley is liable because it sold on credit without authority from its principal. The Civil Code says: Art. 1905 – The commission agentcannot without the express or implied consent of the principal, sell on credit. Should he do so, the principal may demand from him payment in cash, but the commission agent shall be entitled to any interest or benefit, which may result from such sale. (6)INTERNATIONAL FILMS (CHINA) V. LYRIC FILM A subagent is not obliged to fulfill more than the contents of the mandate and to answer for the damages caused to the principal by his failure to do so. FACTS: Bernard Gabelman was the Philippine agent of International Films by virtue of a power of attorney in 1933. In the same year, International Films, through its agent, leased the film entitled, “Monte Carlo Madness,” to Lyric Film to be shown in different theaters. One of the conditions was that Lyric Film would answer for the loss of the film whatever the cause. After the last showing of the film, Gabelman requested Albo, chief of the film department of Lyric Film, to permit him to deposit the film in the latter’s vault under Gabelman’s responsibility, since this would not be covered by the insurance, which Lyric Film carries.