8/13/2019 Schuback

1/1

Schuback & Sons vs. CA

Facts: On October 16, 1981, defendant submitted to plaintiff the list of bus spare parts he wanted topurchase to its counterpart in Hamburg. Plaintiff sent an offer on the items listed. On December 4, 1981,defendant informed plaintiff that he preferred genuine to replacement parts, and requested a 15%discount. On December 17, plaintiff submitted its formal offer. On December 24, defendant submitted apurchase order, and submitted the quantity on December 29. Plaintiff immediately ordered the itemsfrom Schuback Hamburg, which thereafter ordered the same from NDK, a supplier in Germany. Plaintiffsent a pro-forma invoice to be used in applying for letter of credit. On February 16, 1982, plaintiffreminded defendant to open a letter of credit to avoid delay in shipment. Defendant mentioned thedifficulty he was encountering in procuring the same. Plaintiff continued receiving invoices and partialdeliveries from NDK. On October 18, 1982, plaintiff again reminded the defendant to open a letter ofcredit. Defendant replied that he did not make a valid purchase order and that there was no definitecontract between him and the plaintiff. Plaintiff sent a rejoinder explaining that there is a valid PurchaseOrder and suggesting that defendant either proceed with the order and open a letter of credit or cancelthe order and pay the cancellation fee of 30% of F.O.B. value, or plaintiff will endorse the case to itslawyers. Demand letters sent to defendant by plaintiff's counsel dated March 22, 1983 and June 9, 1983were to no avail. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of actual or compensatory

damages, unearned profits, interest, attorney's fees and costs against private respondent.

Issue: Whether or not a contract of sale has been perfected between the parties

Held: Article 1319 of the Civil Code states: "Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer andacceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certainand the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter offer." The facts presented tous indicate that consent on both sides has been manifested. The offer by petitioner was manifested onDecember 17, 1981 when petitioner submitted its proposal containing the item number, quantity, partnumber, description, the unit price and total to private respondent. On December 24, 1981, privaterespondent informed petitioner of his desire to avail of the prices of the parts at that time and

simultaneously enclosed its Purchase Order. At this stage, a meeting of the minds between vendor andvendee has occurred, the object of the contract: being the spare parts and the consideration, the pricestated in petitioner's offer dated December 17, 1981 and accepted by the respondent on December 24,1981.