Dela Rosa vs BPI DIGEST

Dela Rosa vs. BPI BREACH OF CONTRACT 

 

FACTS: •

•

• •

Complaint that the defendant bank started a contest of designs and plans for construction of a building, building , announcing that prizes would be awarded not later than November 30, 1921 !lainti" took part in said contest, said bank refrained from naming udges and a!arding pri"es in accordance with conditions stipulated !lainti" pra#s for $udgment in his favor for 30k as damages with legal interests and costs Court ordered bank to pa# plainti" indemnit# of %k and costs &oth parties appealed

ISS#$' ISS#$' ()N the date set for the award of the prizes was essential in t%e contract and therefore the failure to award the prizes on said date was a breach of contract on the part of the defendant &$'D: no •

•

•

•

•

*ue to the fact that the bank started and advertised the said contest, o"ering prizes under certain conditions, and the plainti" prepared, b# labor and e+pense, and took part in said ban( is bound bound to comp compl) l) !it% !it% t%e t%e prom promis ise e made made in t%e t%e rule rules s and and cont contes est, t, the the ban( conditions prepared and advertised b) it. - binding obligation ma# even originate in advertisements addressed to the general public. /where /where a part# publishes an o"er to the world, and before it is withdrawn another acts upon it, the part# making the o"er is bound to perform his promise. -rticle 1100 /nevertheless, the demand of the creditor shall not be necessar# in order that the default ma# arisewhen b# the reason of the nature and circumstances of the obligation it shall appear that the designation of the time at which the thing was to be delivered or the service rendered was the principal inducement to the creation of the obligation. time for for t%e t%e perf perfor orma manc nce e of t%e t%e obli obliga gati tion on is not not t%e t%e prin princi cipa pall n this case, time inducement, inducement, onl# for the uniformit# of the designs to be presented and to secure greater  $ustice in the the appreciation appreciation of the relative relative merits of of each work submitted submitted *+, t%e defendant ban( !as in default in not a!arding t%e pri"es on said date: o *efendant bank cannot be held to have been in default through the mere lapse of  time or or this $udicial $udicial or e+tra$ud e+tra$udicia iciall demand demand was necessar# necessar# for the performa performance nce of the o obligation, and it was not alleged here, nor does it appear that before bringing this action the plainti" had ever demanded it from the defendant bank in an# manner whatsoever o  he defendant defendant bank, therefore, was not in default !lainti" therefore therefore has no cause of  action in this case *efendant is entirel# absolved from complaint