100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 363 - 366 out of 742 pages.
completely, P “alone” sold the vessels to IG without A’s intervention.A seeks recovery of the commission agreed upon as compensation for its services in connection with the sale of the vessel.Issue: What is the nature of the relation between P and A under the transactions which culminated in the sale by P of the vessels in question to IG?Held:A acted merely as a broker or intermediary between P and IG. One reason — among others — is that A’s Art. 1868 NATURE, FORM, AND KINDS OF AGENCY
AGENCY364representations to IG were approved by P and such approval was transmitted and made known to IG. As the sale appeared to have been the product of A’s intervention, he is entitled to the commission agreed upon. (J. Ysmael & Co., Inc. vs. William Lines, Inc., 103 Phil. [unrep.] 1135 .)________ ________ ________6. Plaintiff, designated as “buyer” and likewise “as agent of the seller,” the defendant, agreed, at its (plaintiff’s) expense to export rice and corn of the “seller” and to import collateral goods for the “seller” in exchange for the rice and corn and to buy said goods from the latter.Facts: Pursuant to a contract, D Corporation agreed to export a certain quantity of rice and corn of N (Naric) and import collateral goods in exchange therefor, and to buy from N the said collateral goods. The exportation and importation was on a no-dollar remittance or barter basis, that is to say, D was not to be paid by its foreign buyer in dollars but in commodities. D expected to make a profit out of its purchase from N of the said goods thereby covering up whatever expenses and losses it might incur in the exportation of the corn and rice which under the contract shall be for its account.The contract designates N as the seller and D as the buyer, thereafter sets forth the role of the “buyer” (D) “as agent of the seller” (N) in the barter transaction. D had exported all the rice and corn at its expense and imported almost half of the commodities stipulated when barter transactions were stopped by a new succeeding administration.N brought action for recovery of a sum of money representing the balance of the value of corn and rice exported by D which, according to N, D bought from N.Issue: Did D buy the rice and corn in question or act merely as an agent of N in the exportation of the same?Held: As an agent, in view of the following circumstances:(1) Under its charter (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 633.), it is N alone which could export and import on barter basis;(2) The contract itself clearly provides that D was to export the rice and corn, and to buy the collateral goods;(3) There is nothing in the contract providing uncondi-tionally that D was buying the rice and corn;Art. 1868
365(4) N called bids for the purchase of the rice and corn but because of their poor quality, a direct purchase thereof even with the privilege of importing commodities did not attract good offers. That was where D came in with its offer to act as agent. In other words, the primary consideration of D was not the purchase of the corn but the purchase of the commodities