Course Hero Logo

Argued that excavation and soil protection works were

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 70 - 72 out of 201 pages.

argued that excavation and soil protection works were not part of its responsibilities. The Courtcannot sanction KKCA's stance. What is material is that KKCA agreed to the stipulations containedin Addendum #01, which, among others, placed excavation and soil protection works within itsscope of undertakings. Neither does it matter that the stipulations in Addendum #01 andAddendum #02 were not included in the discussion on the contents of the main ConstructionContract as long as the concerned party was not deprived of ample time to study them. In any event,it was established that KKCA's consent to the provisions of Addendum #01 and Addendum #02 wasnot vitiated.Paragraph 21 of Addendum #01 included all excavation works within the scope of works of thegeneral contractor, while paragraph 33 of Addendum #01 stipulates that the general contractor shall
CIVIL LAWPage71of201be responsible for soil protection works,i.e., provide, erect and maintain all necessary bracing,shoring, planking, etc., as required to protect the adjoining property against settlement and damages,and to make sure that the methodology to be used will protect the adjacent properties against erosionand settlement.Article 1370 of the CivilCodein part states that "if the terms of a contract are clear and leave nodoubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shallcontrol."3) There was no agreement that Colorite has to share in the restoration of the Hontiverosproperty.On the part of Colorite, its failure to advance part of its share in the restoration cost was due to abreakdown in the negotiation process which occurred when KKCA was insisting on a 70-30 sharing.Although We maintain that Colorite was still at fault when it failed to give what was promised whenKKCA was already demanding the same, it cannot be said that such refusal was tainted by bad faith.Instead, it was more a case of a breakdown in the negotiation process, or a deadlock which theparties were not able to overcome due to their adherence to their respective positions.Absent any showing that the minds of the parties did meet on an essential term of the purportedcontract,i.e.,whether Colorite should contribute Php 700,000.00 or 70% of the total cost, it appearsthat no subsequent and definitive agreement or contract was perfected between the parties on thisregard.The perfection of a contract entails that the parties should agree on every point of aproposition - otherwise, there is no contract at all.As found by the CIAC, aside from the bareassertions of Chua, no other evidence was offered to sufficiently prove that an agreement to sharein the restoration cost of the Hontiveros property was perfected between the parties.4) KKCA is under obligation to secure the quitclaim of the Hontiveros family and the liftingof the Hold Order issued by the City Government of MakatiBy express provision ofArticle 1315 of the Civil Code,the parties are bound not only to thefulfilment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 201 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor
Tags
Psychology, Test, Antisocial personality disorder, Narcissistic personality disorder

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture