[Solved] A called up B that he was selling his house and lot for P10M. Within one (1) hour after B accepted the offer, he invited A for dinner at the Manila Hotel where B paid the dinner in the amount of P5,000.00. They agreed that the P5,000.00 was the downpayment. A receipt for the payment of P5,000.00 for the dinner was issued. When A refused to sell, B sued for specific performance. Is B correct?

Q.	A called up B that he was selling his house and lot for P10M. Within one (1) hour after B accepted the offer, he invited A for dinner at the Manila Hotel where B paid the dinner in the amount of P5,000.00. They agreed that the P5,000.00 was the downpayment. A receipt for the payment of P5,000.00 for the dinner was issued. When A refused to sell, B sued for specific performance. Is B correct?
A.	B is correct because the contract has been partially executed due to the agreement that the P5,000.00 paid for their dinner constituted the downpayment.
B.	B is not correct since the contract is unenforceable as it was not put to writing.
C.	A is wrong because the contract is unenforceable as there was no payment of the price.
D.	The contract is valid because it has all the elements of a valid contract.
Answer» A. B is correct because the contract has been partially executed due to the agreement that the P5,000.00 paid for their dinner constituted the downpayment.

1.7k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

X brought a house and lot from Y valued at P5M. He paid P3M and for the balance, he executed a promissory note with interest at 10% to be paid within 90 days. ABC Corporation executed a surety for the balance. X failed to pay, hence, ABC paid the amount and sued X for the interest and the principal. X contended that he is not bound due to novation when Y accepted the security. Is X correct?
A built his house on his lot up to the boundary line and opened windows with direct view over the lot of B. Twenty (20) years later, B built his house up to the boundary line of his lot, hence, A filed a complaint enjoining B from building his house up to the boundary contending that he has acquired the easement of light and view by prescription and that B cannot build less than 3 meters from the boundary. Is A correct?
X communicated to Y that he was selling his house and lot and gave him an option to buy the same up to the end of the month of September. Y accepted the offer with an agreement that Y will allow X to stay in his house in Los Angeles, California during Christmas time that year. Is the option binding upon X?
X and Y are married. They were leasing a parcel of land in 2007; they constructed a house on the leased lot valued at P1M and resided thereon. While in business, they incurred liability from Z who sued them for failure to pay. Judgment was rendered and it became final and executory. Can the house be levied upon?
A and B entered into a contract for B to construct the house of A for P10M. XYZ are partners engaged in the construction of houses. As they are friends of A, they told him that they can construct his house for only P8M and told him to cancel the contract with B. He cancelled the contract with B. What is the right of B?
A and B are married. They have a daughter C who has a 5-year old child. C went to Hongkong to work for 2 years and left the child to the custody of X and Y who are not related to them. When A and B learned about the departure of their daughter, they demanded the surrender of the custody of their granddaughter, D to them, but X and Y refused, hence A and B sued X & Y for habeas corpus. When the order was served upon them, they produced the body of the child. The court dismissed the petition immediately. Is the dismissal correct?
A and B are married. They are governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. A, the Executive Vice-President of ABC Corp. signed as a surety in a loan secured by the company from Metrobank for the rehabilitation of the company. As business was good after rehabilitation, A was given a house and lot, a brand new caw and raise in his salary. The company was sued due to its failure to pay the loan. Are the properties of A and B liable?
Samson, the son of a wealthy family has always claimed that since childhood, he was not a boy. He played with the girls and did not mingle with the boys. After finishing his course at a university in the Philippines, he went to the US to take up his masteral and doctorate degrees. He consulted several doctors of the possibility of sex transmission from that of male to that of a female. The sex transmission was done in Thailand and which was certified as successful by a medical expert in Manila, hence, he claimed to be a woman. He filed a petition for correction of entry of his record of birth from male to female and his name from Samson to Delailah as he was marrying his fiancé. The lower court granted the petition. Is the order of the court correct?
State the nature of this donation: “I hereby donate to X “mortis causa” a 1000 square meter lot worth P10M subject to the condition that this donation shall be deemed revoked if he fails to build a house on the land worth P1M within one (1) year from date hereof and delivery shall be made after my death.”
A & B entered into an oral contract of sale of A’s car worth P4.5M where the object was supposed to be delivered upon payment of the price. When A went to B’s house to pay the price, the latter refused to sell hence, a complaint for specific performance was filed by A. will the complaint prosper?