Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUES:
1. WON a person who is not a party to a
contract for the sale of land makes
himself liable for damages to the
vendee, beyond the value of the use
and occupation, by colluding with the
vendor and maintaining him in an
effort to resist an action for specific
performance. YES
2. WON the damages which Daywalt seeks
are too remote and speculative to be the
subject of recovery. YES
Ratio:
1.) Yes, by inducing Endencia not to
perform the contract the Corporation
can be held liable but not more
extensively liable than Endencia who is
the principal in the contract.
a. SC believes that the corporation
believed in good faith that the
contract between Daywalt and
Endencia could not be inforced.
(No malice in their part BUT,
malice in the sense of ill-will or
spite is NOT essential.)
b. Taken from Gilchrist vs. Cuddy:
One who buys something which
he knows has been sold to some
other person can be restrained
from using that thing to the
prejudice of the person having the
prior and better right.
c. Article 1902 of the CC : that any
person who by an act or
omission, characterized by fault
or negligence, causes damage to
another shall be liable for the
damage so done.
d. The stranger to the contract
cannot
become
more
extensively liable in damages
for the non-performance of the
contract that the party in whose
behalf he intermeddles.
Paolo Go
2.) Yes, the damages in question are
special damages which were not within
contemplation of the parties when the
contract was made and too remote to
be the subject or recovery.
a. As to Endencia, it should be
considered that the right of action
to recover damages for the
breach of the contract in question
was exhausted in the prior suit.
b. The kind of damage contemplated
is special (found in cases where
some external condition, apart