Solar vs Chesley G.R. No. L-17150 June 20, 1922 ROMUALDEZ, J.

Andres soler ,plaintiff, had agreed with Wm. H. Anderson and Co., for the purchase of certain
machinery. On November 16, 1918, the plaintiff sold to Edward chesley, the defendant, all his rights
and interest in the aforesaid contract of sale. Mentioned in the contract between the plaintiff and
defendant, the sqale of the machinery is for 100,000, the saim to be paid by chesley by paying Anderson
and co the amount of the invoices of the machinery, and soler the difference which may be found to
exist between the amount of said invoces an d 100,000. Only 3 of the parts purchased were deliverd on
time while te remsining and te most important parts were delivered late. These effects were received
and paid for by the defendant under protest, on account of the fact that they were not delivered within
the period stipulates in the contract.
On the 14th of October, 1919, the plaintiff commenced an action in which praying that the
defendant be sentenced to pay him the sum of P30,546.03 with interest thereon plus the incidental
expenses.. the lower court ruled in favor of plaintiff

Issue: W/N time was an essence of the contract

Rulings:
Yes. The fact that the plaintiff had no control of the prompt transportation of the said
machinery to Manila, does not relieve the plaintiff from making good the guaranty inserted in the
contract that said machinery was already on the way to Manila. It was found that the plaintiff has
failed to carry out his obligation incurred under the second paragraph of the contract. Stating that
“That a part of the aforesaid machinery is at this time on the way, the other part being already in this
city of Manila, the price of which has not as yet been paid by Mr. Soler to Messrs. Wm. H. Anderson
and Co.”and, therefore, no right to compel the defendant to comply with his obligation to pay the
plaintiff the sum claimed in the complaint
The judgement appealed from is reversed, and the defendant absolved from the complaint