Distinguish a sale of a future thing and a sale of a hope or expectancy. Give an example of each.

A sale of a future thing is the sale of a thing not yet in existence. It is reasonable certain that the thing
will come into existence but uncertain as to its quantity and quality. For example: The sale of all the
apple to B (buyer) that may be harvested from A's (seller) apple tree within a given period of time. On
the other hand, a sale of a hope or expectancy is a sale of a thing in which it is not certain that the thing
itself will exist, much less its quantity and quality. The sale of hope or expectancy is valid even if the
thing does not come into existence unless the hope or expectancy is in vain in which the sale is void. For
example, A buys a lotto ticket in the hope of winning the prize. The sale is valid even if A does not win
the prize. However, if A buys an expired lotto ticket in the hope of winning the prize, the sale is void
because the hope is in vain.

What is the legal importance of distinguishing between a contract of sale and a contract for a piece of
work?

The legal importance of distinguishing between a contract of sale and a contract for a piece of work is
that the latter is not within the Statute of Fraud. A contract of sale is a contract in which the vendor in
the ordinary course of business manufactures for the general market and sale of a movable thing in
which the price is P500.00 or more is governed by Statute of Frauds. However, a contract for a piece of
work is a contract in which the contractor binds himself to execute a piece of work for the employer, the
thing manufactured is not for general market.

A sold a computer unit to B on a sale or return basis. After delivery to B, and before B could signify his
intention of returning the computer unit to A, the said computer unit was stolen without the fault of
B. Who will bear the loss of the said property? Explain.

B will bear the loss of the said property. Article 1502 provides that when the thing delivered to the buyer
on a sale or return basis , the ownership passes to the buyer on delivery but he may pass it back to the
seller by returning the thing within the fixed time provided in the contract or if not provided within a
reasonable time. In this case, the computer was already delivered to B so the ownership was already
transferred to B. But before he could return it, the computer was stolen. The ownership is still on B
because the case happened before he could return it. B would bear the loss and would pay to A the
purchase price of the computer.

S sold to B an iPhone 11. The iPhone, however, was allowed to remain in the hands of S.
Subsequently, S sold the same iPhone to C who bought it in good faith and took possession thereof.
Who has a better right to the iPhone? Explain.

C has the better right to the iPhone. Article 1544 provides that if the same thing should have been sold
to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferredto the person who may have first taken
possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. In this case, the object is a movable
property. Even though B bought it first but C bought it in good faith and took possession of it first. So, C
has the better right to the iPhone.
S sold to B a pair of male and female carabaos for the price of P20,000 for the female and P30,000 for
the male. A few days after delivery to him, B noticed that the female carabao was actually suffering
from an incurable disease. Thus, B went to S and demanded the redhibition of the entire sale. S
contended that B had no right to rescind the entire sale, but only as to the female carabao, which had
the redhibitory defect. Is S correct? Why or why not?(5 pts.)

Yes, S is correct. Article 1572 provides If two or more animals are sold together, whether for a lump sum
or for a separate price for each of them, the redhibitory defect of one shall only give rise to its
redhibition, and not that of the others; unless it should appear that the vendee would not have
purchased the sound animal or animals without the defective one. In this case, B had no right to rescind
the entire article because only the female carabao has a defect unless he can show that B should not
purchased the male carabao without the female carabao.

B went to Western Motors, Inc. to buy a car. After he was shown cars of different models and makes,
he chose a particular car. B intended to enter the car in a race but this fact was not made known to
the seller. After buying the car, B went on a long drive. There, he noticed that the car is not running as
fast as he had expected. Consequently, B filed a suit against Western Motors for breach of implied
warranty of fitness. Will B's suit prosper?

No, B's suit will not prosper. It is in Article 1562 that where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes
known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are acquired, and it appears that the
buyer relies on the seller’s skill of judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is
an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose. There is no implied
warranty here because B relied on his judgment and that Western Motors, inc. was not informed for the
his purpose of buying the thing. If he would have said about his purpose of buying the thing, he could
have been offered for the better thing that is fit for the purpose of the car, which in that case there is an
implied warranty.

A granted B the exclusive right to sell his brand of Maong pants in Isabela, the price for his
merchandise payable within 60 days from delivery, and promising B a commission of 20% on all sales.
After the delivery of the merchandise to B but before he could sell any of them, B’s store in Isabela
was completely burned without his fault, together with all of A's pants. Must B pay A for his lost
pants? Why?

Yes, B must pay A for his loss pants. Article 1466 provides that in construing a contract containing
provisions characteristic of both the contract of sale and of the contract of agency to sell, the essential
clauses of the whole instrument shall be considered. However, this case is not a contact of agency to sell
because the price is stipulated that it should be payable within 60 days from the delivery. The ownership
is passed to B upon delivery. So, B will bear the loss and that he will pay A.

No, this receipt is not an evidence of contract to sell. This is a contract of sale . Article 1477- 1488 states
that the ownership of the thing sold shall
be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. The parties may stipulate
that ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price.

On July 3, 2020, Mary sold a parcel of registered land to Joseph. On July 20, 2020, she sold the same
land to Joseph. Who has a better right if the second sale is registered ahead of the first sale, with
knowledge of the latter? Why?

Joseph who bought it July 3, 2020 has the better right of the land. Article 1544 provides that should it be
immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
recorded it in the Registry of Property. In this case, the second vendee knew that the land was already
sold to the first vendee at the time he registered the land which results that the second vendee acted in
bad faith. Now, the Article 1544 states that the first to record it in the Registry of Property in good faith
will have the better right but the second vendee acted in bad faith. So, Joseph should have the better
right.

No, Jude's contention is not correct. Article 1592 states that In the sale of immovable property, even
though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the
rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the
period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or
by a notarial act. After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term. In this case, Jude did not
demand for rescission of the contract. Since there's no demand, Joshua can still pay and Jude should
accept the payment of Joshua.

Yes, Brendon's action for specific performance will prosper. Article 1482 provides that whenever earnest
money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the
perfection of the contract. However, the option money in the case is not an option money but an
earnest money. Brendon's action for specific performance will prosper because there is already an
agreement between them when Brendon paid the portion of the agreed price.

No, Sonny cannot justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is financially
disadvantageous to him. There is already a sale between them and Brendon did not act in bad faith.
Sonny cannot pull out from the contract because Brendon did not act in bad faith.

No, the suit will not prosper. Article 1559 stated that he defendant vendee shall ask, within the time
fixed in the Rules of Court for answering the complaint, that the vendor be made a co-defendant.
However, the article refers to the case wherein the defendant is the vendee who was deprived of the
thing purchased. In the case above, Phum was not deprived of the car but the price of it. It is understood
that when the thing is delivered, the ownership is also transferred. So, Edward has the right to sold it to
Gabriel.

Yes, Elmo is legally bound to pay the said unpaid balance of P75,000. Article 1496 states the ownership
of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in any of the ways
specified in articles 1497 to1501, or in any other manner signifying an agreement
that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. In this case, the car was already
delivered to Elmo so there is already a transfer of ownership. The loss of the thing will now be on Elmo.

It is in Article 1567 in case of hidden defects, the vendee has the option to either withdraw from the
contract or demand a proportionate reduction of the price with damages in either case. Buck must
present proof that he suffered from the breach of Stan's warranty to be entitled to actual damages.

No, the contention of Boruto is not tenable. Article 1537 states that the vendor is bound to deliver the
thing sold and its accessions and accessories in the condition in which they were upon the perfection of
the

contract. The object of the contract is the truck, the corresponding certificate of public convenience is
an accessory to the truck. However, it is not on the fault of the seller that the accessory was no longer
existed. The seller did not act in bad faith.