Article 1323

 Article 1323 An offer becomes ineffective upon the death, civil interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance is conveyed.


Reason for this article - it is fundamental in our law that the contract is not perfected except by the concurrence of two wills which exist and continue until the moment that they concur. 


Definition of Civil Interdiction, insanity and insolvency

Civil Interdiction – mandatory accessory penalty deemed imposed whenever the sentence rendered is within the range of reclusion temporal to death. If the latter is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon.

Insanity – legal term for mental disorder; disease or defect of the brain.

Insolvency – inability or the lack of means to pay one’s debt.


Illustrations:

Death: Juan Dela Cruz offer to sell his beach resort to Pedro Rivera for the amount of 1.5M pesos but before the day that they are going to meet up for the payment and their contract will be made, Juan Dela Cruz died therefore the meeting of the mind of the two parties became ineffective because of the death of Juan Dela Cruz.

Civil Interdiction: In the preceding illustration, supposing that Juan Dela Cruz was sentenced for life imprisonment because he was found guilty in murder case and there is no acceptance had been conveyed by Pedro to Juan before the sale, therefore the offer made by Juan became ineffective because his sentence carried with civil interdiction.

Insanity: Same as the above illustration, if Juan Dela Cruz became insane before Pedro Rivera accepted his offer the contract became ineffective because an insane person cannot give consent to a contract.

Insolvency: Also, if Juan Dela Cruz was declared by the court as an insolvent person due to his inability or lack of means to pay one’s debt before Pedro Rivera accepted the offer therefore the meeting of the minds of the parties is not valid because of the insolvency of the offeror.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 1387

 Article 1387 - All contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the donation. Alienation by onerous title are also presumed fraudulent when made by persons against whom some judgment has been rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment has been issued. The decision or attachment need not refer to the property alienated and need not have been obtained by the party seeking the rescission. In addition to these presumptions, the design to defraud creditors may be proved in any other manner recognized by the law of evidence. The Statutory presumptions of fraud in Art. 1387are: Alienation by gratuitous title Example:  R made a donation of a parcel of land to E. Before the date of the donation, R had contracted several debts. With the donation to E, the remaining property of R is not sufficient t...
Read more

Article 1227

Article 1227 - The debtor cannot exempt himself from the performance of the obligation by paying the penalty, save in the case where this right has been expressly reserved for him. Neither can the creditor demand the fulfillment of the obligation and the satisfaction of the penalty at the same time, unless this right has been clearly granted him. However, if after the creditor has decided to require the fulfillment of the obligation, the performance thereof should become impossible without his fault, the penalty may be enforced. (1153a) Right of Debtor  - generally, the debtor cannot just pay the penalty instead of performing the obligation. The purpose of the penalty is to secure compliance with his obligation.  Exception - When the debtor is expressly granted the right. Ex. - PPD promises to finish the house within a stipulated period of 8 months. The contract stipulates that in case he does not build the house at all, he is supposed to forfeit the sum of 100k pesos. In thi...
Read more