Case Analysis: 02 - Activity - 1

Marticio, Joyce Ann M.
BSBA401
02_Activity_1
Case Analysis
1.) Yes, Oseroas is responsible for damages sustained as a result of fraud or bad faith in
knowingly violating the parties' sale contract for the following reasons:
 Delivery not met on time: Oseroas caused the first damage by failing to deliver the
entire units of copra on time, which was expected by the contract signed with the
agreement of all parties and which Oseroas failed to fulfill that.
 Ignoring the demand of the client: When Legaspi Oil Co. repeatedly demanded the
remainder of the supply, Oseroas decided to disregard them, which is a total violation
of contract because the client could have suffered substantial losses as a result of the
delayed delivery to a third party, and now Oseroas has chosen to ignore them, further
raising the severity of the loss.
 Failing to deliver the remaining balance: Legaspi Oil Co. ultimately lodged an
appeal with a notice that Oseroas should refund the money in the open market, but
the firm failed to do so as well, resulting in a double breach of contract.
Hence, Oseroas is liable for the damages caused to Legaspi Oil Co.
2.) First, the appellate court overlooked the fundamental tenet that a waiver of a right
must be express, rendered in a simple and undeniable manner when concluding that the
penalties due from Moonwalk are considered waived and/or prohibited. In the case at
hand, there is no proof that SSS made a simple, constructive waiver of the penalties when
fully aware of the circumstances. It misinterpreted the ruling that SSS funds are trust
funds, and that SSS, as a mere trustee, cannot conduct actions affecting them, such as
condoning fines, that would harm the property rights of the fund's owners and
beneficiaries. It also overlooked the fact that a penalty of 12% p.a. is not inequitable.
The case at hand does not involve any legal fines or the inability to pay premiums as
required by law. The case at hand concerns a loan deal between the plaintiff and the
defendant, Moonwalk Development and Housing Corporation. Therefore , there is no
legal requirement in this case, no penalty levied by law, and no case of non-remittance of
premium as required by law. The current case includes an arrangement for a loan payable
in installments that is not regulated by law but rather by the parties' agreement. As a
result, the ratio decidendi in United Christian Missionary Society vs. Social Security
Commission, on which plaintiff-appellant relies, does not apply in this case; clearly, the
Social Security Commission, as a creature of the Social Security Act, cannot condone a
mandatory provision of law requiring the payment of premiums and imposing penalties
for non-payment. The premiums are the lifeblood of the Social Security Act because they
Marticio, Joyce Ann M. BSBA401
are the funds from which the Act obtains funds for its purposes, and non-payment of
premiums is punishable not by the Social Security Commission but by law.
Finally, after looking into the case, it was discovered that it did not refer to the current
case because it dealt with the SSS's right to collect premiums and its obligation to collect
the penalty for late or non-payment of premiums, not with its right to collect penalties
that were provided for in contracts that it entered into.
3.) Smith is guilty of negligence on two counts here,
 Driving the vehicle fast instead of slowing down.

 Failing to avoid the accident despite expecting it from afar.
He may have had more time to put the brakes on and stop hitting the horse if he had
decided to move at a slower pace than he originally did. Despite seeing the horse and
rider's reluctance to turn ends, he chose to drive his vehicle rapidly. He violated the duty
of care and also caused injuries to the plaintiff, so he was definitely guilty of negligence
on the account evidently reckless in failing to retain control of his vehicle.
Since Smith's approach caused injury to the plaintiff as well as the death of the plaintiff's
horse, the lower court dismissed the claim in absolving Smith of liability. The court most
certainly did not weigh the likelihood of preventing the accident and instead decided in
favor of the defendant based on the few rules of negligence that the defendant followed
correctly. Even if there is a 10% chance of surviving an accident, the driver must be
responsible and owe a duty of care to pedestrians and other vehicles.

Case Analysis: 02 - Activity - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis: 02 - Activity - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis: 02 - Activity - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marticio, Joyce Ann M.

Hence, Oseroas is liable for the damages caused to Legaspi Oil Co.

3.) Smith is guilty of negligence on two counts here,

 Driving the vehicle fast instead of slowing down.

You might also like