0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
51 vues1 page
Singson bought round trip tickets from Cathay Pacific to travel from Manila to Los Angeles and back. However, when he tried to book his return flight from Los Angeles to Manila, he discovered that the flight coupon for that leg of the trip was missing. Cathay Pacific then failed to immediately confirm his booking. The Supreme Court ruled that the round trip ticket constituted a written contract of carriage between Singson and Cathay Pacific. By losing the coupon and failing to promptly confirm the booking, Cathay Pacific breached this contract of carriage, as the loss of the coupon was due to the airline's negligence. The Court therefore found Cathay Pacific liable for damages.
Singson bought round trip tickets from Cathay Pacific to travel from Manila to Los Angeles and back. However, when he tried to book his return flight from Los Angeles to Manila, he discovered that the flight coupon for that leg of the trip was missing. Cathay Pacific then failed to immediately confirm his booking. The Supreme Court ruled that the round trip ticket constituted a written contract of carriage between Singson and Cathay Pacific. By losing the coupon and failing to promptly confirm the booking, Cathay Pacific breached this contract of carriage, as the loss of the coupon was due to the airline's negligence. The Court therefore found Cathay Pacific liable for damages.
Singson bought round trip tickets from Cathay Pacific to travel from Manila to Los Angeles and back. However, when he tried to book his return flight from Los Angeles to Manila, he discovered that the flight coupon for that leg of the trip was missing. Cathay Pacific then failed to immediately confirm his booking. The Supreme Court ruled that the round trip ticket constituted a written contract of carriage between Singson and Cathay Pacific. By losing the coupon and failing to promptly confirm the booking, Cathay Pacific breached this contract of carriage, as the loss of the coupon was due to the airline's negligence. The Court therefore found Cathay Pacific liable for damages.
G.R. No. 119995. November 18, 1997 FACTS: Petitioner Singson and his cousin Tiongson bought from respondent Cathay Pacific Airways two (2) open-dated, identically routed, round trip plane tickets (Manila to Los Angeles and vice versa). Each ticket consisted of six (6) flight coupons, each would be detached at the start of each leg of the trip. Singson failed to obtain a booking in Los Angeles for their trip to Manila. Apparently, the coupon corresponding to the 5th leg of the trip was missing and instead the 3rd was still attached. It was not until few days later that the defendant finally was able to arrange for his return to Manila. Singson commenced an action for damages based on breach of contract of carriage against CATHAY before the Regional Trial Court. CATHAY alleged that there was no contract of carriage yet existing such that CATHAYs refusal to immediately book him could not be construed as breach of contract of carriage. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner herein holding that CATHAY was guilty of gross negligence amounting to malice and bad faith. On appeal by CATHAY, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts finding that there was gross negligence amounting to bad faith or fraud and, accordingly, modified its judgment by deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages, and the attorneys fees as well. ISSUE: Whether or not a breach of contract was committed by CATHAY when it failed to confirm the booking of petitioner. HELD: Yes. The round trip ticket issued by the carrier to the passenger was in itself a complete written contract by and between the carrier and the passenger. It had all the elements of a complete written contract, to wit: (a) the consent of the contracting parties manifested by the fact that the passenger agreed to be transported by the carrier to and from Los Angeles via San Francisco and Hong Kong back to the Philippines, and the carriers acceptance to bring him to his destination and then back home; (b) cause or consideration, which was the fare paid by the passenger as stated in his ticket; and, (c) object, which was the transportation of the passenger from the place of departure to the place of destination and back, which are also stated in his ticket. In fact, the contract of carriage in the instant case was already partially executed as the carrier complied with its obligation to transport the passenger to his destination, i.e., Los Angeles. The loss of the coupon was attributable to the negligence of CATHAYs agents and was the proximate cause of the non-confirmation of petitioner's return flight.
Victoria Sales Corporation and Fritz Air Freight, Inc., Cross-Appellees v. Emery Air Freight, Inc., A/K/A Emery Worldwide and Lassen Gmbh, Appeal of Emery Air Freight, Inc., A/K/A Emery Worldwide, Cross-Appellant, 917 F.2d 705, 2d Cir. (1990)
Rules Governing The Courts of The State of New Jersey Rule 1:4. Form and Execution of Papers 1:4-1. Caption: Name and Addresses of Party and Attorney Format