STUDENTS NUMBER: 201910880

SCHEDULE:

ANSWER SHEET

1. ) Yes, The ABC corporation is justified in refusing to pay the 123 corporation for the reason
that, according to Article 1159, contractual obligations have the force of law between the
contracting parties and must be fulfilled in good faith. ABC Corporation demonstrated good
faith in this situation by refusing to pay 123 Corporation. Because 123 corporation was not
really part of the contract.

2.1) No, According to the article 1170 Those who in the performance of their obligation are
guilty of fraud,negligence, or delay,and those who in any manner contravene the tenor therof, are
liable for damages. In this case the event is not fortuitous, moreover if ABC corporation didn’t
fail to pay its obligation from the very first, this kind of vent won’t happen.

2.2) No, as stated to the article 1298 that The novation is void if the original obligation was void,
except when annulment may be claimed only by the debtor, or when ratification validates acts
which are voidable. Furthermore, ABC corporation is still liable to its obligation, for the reason
that it did not show that XYZ bank agreed to transfer the debt to 123 corporation or not.

3.) No, According to the article 1226  In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall
substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of noncompliance, if
there is no stipulation to the contrary. Since Mr. A evidently failed the substance test, he is not
eligible to be employed as a permanent employee.

4.1) Yes, As stated in the Article 1163 Every Person obliged to give something is also obliged to
take care of it with proper diligence of a good father of a family unless the law or the stipulation
of the parties requires another standard of care. In this situation, Mr. A behaved in poor
conscience and refused to satisfy his duty.

4.2) Yes, According to Article 1169 Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay
from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their
obligation. In this situation, it was obviously shown that Mr. A refused to fulfill his obligations,
and that after a month, it started to find disconnections in Mr. A's name, considering the fact
that all utilities were already unpaid.

5.)No, based on article 1177 The creditor, having pursued the property in possession of the
debtor to satisfy their claim,may exercise all the right and brings the action of a latter for the
same purpose, save those which are inherint in his person;they may also impugn acts which the
debtor may have done to refraud them. In this case Mr a pay his loan before 5 yrs. So he's still
payed on time, it is almost 12 month not after 12 month so it still liable to receive. Mr.B
obligated to receive the payment from mr. A because it is not delayed.

6.)

7.)

8.) No, because according to article 1170 Those who in the performance of their obligation are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are
liable for damage. So in this case ms A is guilty for not delivering the wedding gown on the date
that they agreed. The case is delayed so this argument is tenable.