LICHAUCO VS FIGUERAS HERMANOS

7 Phil 339

The plaintiff owned some lorchas which he consigned to the defendants under a contract dated
April 20,1905, under which the defendants may make use of the lorchas during the months of June, July
and August 1905. Under this contract, defendants were to collect 10% as commission from all
freightage received by them. On April 29, 1905, the parties entered into a new agreement, modifying the
first. The second agreement stipulated that if the defendants should get the contract to furnish lorchas
to the Quartermaster in the bidding that was to take place on May 2,1905, the defendants would pay as
freightage for two of the lorchas, the highest rate given under the Quartermaster contract, deduction only
10% commission. The defendant submitted their bid for May, 1905 but the Quartermaster rejected all the
bids offered. A new bidding took place on May 16, 1905, in which the contract was divided; the
defendant’s bid was accepted for the emergency service, and a third person was awarded the second
contract the contract for the regular service. On July 1, 1905, the two lorchas mentioned in the second
contract were furnished by defendants to the Quartermaster under their contract, and they were used for
the emergency service for several days in the month of August, after which defendants placed them at the
plaintiff’s disposal. Plaintiff now claims that he should be paid for the hire of the lorchas for every day of
the month the perdiem emergency rate paid by the Quartermaster on the days when the boats were in use.

HELD:
The amendment to the contract between the parties was expressly conditioned on the defendant’s
being successful bidders at the letting of May 2, 1905 and the amendment became of no force or effect
when the result of the bidding was announced. The plaintiff therefore cannot recover on the basis of the
second contract but only under the first.