Scribd
Upload
431 views1 page

Laudico vs. Arias Rodrigues

This case involves a dispute over a proposed lease agreement for a building. The defendant offered to lease the building to the plaintiff and transmitted a tentative contract. Negotiations took place by correspondence to discuss additional terms and clarifications. On March 6, the plaintiff wrote to accept all of the defendant's proposals. However, earlier that same day the defendant had written to withdraw the offer to lease the building. The court ruled that no contract was formed because under the Civil Code, an acceptance is not effective until received by the offeror. Therefore, the defendant had the right to withdraw the offer before receiving notice of the plaintiff's acceptance.

Uploaded by

Vedia Genon II
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
431 views1 page

Laudico vs. Arias Rodrigues

This case involves a dispute over a proposed lease agreement for a building. The defendant offered to lease the building to the plaintiff and transmitted a tentative contract. Negotiations took place by correspondence to discuss additional terms and clarifications. On March 6, the plaintiff wrote to accept all of the defendant's proposals. However, earlier that same day the defendant had written to withdraw the offer to lease the building. The court ruled that no contract was formed because under the Civil Code, an acceptance is not effective until received by the offeror. Therefore, the defendant had the right to withdraw the offer before receiving notice of the plaintiff's acceptance.

Uploaded by

Vedia Genon II
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

CASE NO.

41-GENON
LAUDICO VS. ARIAS RODRIGUEZ

FACTS: Defendant, Vicente Arias, who, with his codefendants, owned the building Nos.
205 to 221 on Carriedo Street, on his behalf and that of his co-owners, wrote a letter to
the plaintiff, Mamerto Laudico, giving him an option to lease the building to a third
person, and transmitting to him for that purpose a tentative contract in writing containing
the conditions upon which the proposed lease should be made. Later Mr. Laudico
presented his coplaintiff, Mr. Fred. M. Harden, as the party desiring to lease the
building. On one hand, other conditions were added to those originally contained in the
tentative contract, and, on the other, counter-propositions were made and explanations
requested on certain points in order to make them clear. These negotiations were
carried on by correspondence and verbally at interviews held with Mr. Vicente Arias, no
definite agreement having been arrived at until the plaintiff, Mr. Laudico, finally wrote a
letter to Mr. Arias on March 6,1919, advising him that all his propositions, as amended
and supplemented, were accepted, It is admitted that this letter was received by Mr.
Arias by special delivery at 2.53 p. m. of that day. On that same day, at 11.25 in the
morning, Mr. Arias had, in turn, written a letter to the plaintiff, Mr. Laudico, withdrawing
the offer to lease the building. The chief prayer of the plaintiff in this action is that the
defendants be compelled to execute the contract of lease of the building in question.
ISSUE: Whether a contract of lease was perfected.
RULINFG: No. Under article 1262, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, an acceptance by
letter does not have any effect until it comes to the knowledge of the offerer. Therefore,
before he learns of the acceptance, the latter is not yet bound by it and can still
withdraw the offer. Consequently, when Mr. Arias wrote Mr. Laudico, withdrawing the
offer, he had the right to do so, inasmuch as he had not yet received notice of the
acceptance. And when the notice of the acceptance was received by Mr. Arias, it no
longer had any effect, as the offer was not then in existence, the same having already
been withdrawn. There was no meeting of the minds, through offer and acceptance,
which is the essence of the contract. While there was an offer, there was no
acceptance, and when the latter was made and could have a binding effect, the offer
was then lacking. Though both the offer and the acceptance existed, they did not meet
to give birth to a contract.
Before notice of acceptance, the offer may be revoked, and the revocation will
have the effect of preventing the perfection of the contract, although it may not be
known by the acceptant.

You might also like