[Solved] P appointed A, his agent for the purpose of selling the former’s car for P500,000.00. A sold the car in his name to B. After delivery, it was found out that the car has hidden defects which rendered the car unfit for the purpose of B. Can B file an action against P even if A acted in his own name?

Q.	P appointed A, his agent for the purpose of selling the former’s car for P500,000.00. A sold the car in his name to B. After delivery, it was found out that the car has hidden defects which rendered the car unfit for the purpose of B. Can B file an action against P even if A acted in his own name?
A.	No, because the legal principle than becomes applicable is caveat emptor.
B.	Yes, because while the agent acted in his own name but the agency involves a thing belonging to the principal.
C.	No, since in the law on agency, the Rule is that if the agent acted in his name, the principal is bound to the third person and the third person does not become bound to the principal.
D.	No, because the contract is already perfected and executed.
Answer» B. Yes, because while the agent acted in his own name but the agency involves a thing belonging to the principal.

2.3k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

A & B entered into a contract of sale over A’s car for P500,000.00. A has to register the car first before payment and delivery. After the registration of the car, A called up B that the car was ready for pick up. B asked him to send his driver to deliver the car as he was going to pay before delivery. B was able to convince the driver to leave the car at his garage and will just deposit the amount with A’s account for fear that the driver might be the subject of a hold-up. Instead of depositing the amount, he sold the car to C. Can A recover the car from C?
To secure the payment of his obligation, A pledged to his surety C, his car who sold the car after paying the obligation of A. The obligation was P2M but the car was sold for only P1M. Can the surety recover the deficiency?
Jose is under obligation to deliver to Pedro, at the option of Jose, a car, a pick-up truck, or a van, all of which are specific. No. 1 - If the car and the pick-up truck were lost through Jose’s fault, he has no choice but to deliver the van; If the van was lost through a fortuitous event before delivery, the obligation is extinguished and Jose is not liable. No. 2 - If the pick-up truck and the car were lost through a fortuitous event, Jose has no choice but to deliver the van; if before delivery, the van was lost because of Jose’s fault, he is liable.
A is the owner of a parcel of land. B, with a gadget to detect hidden treasure and used the instrument to determine if hidden treasure is found in A’s land which proved positive. With A’s consent, B extracted the hidden treasure. Is B entitled to 1/2?
A has in his possession B’s car. He sold it to C without the consent of B, but one day thereafter B sold the same car to B. Who is the owner of the car?
A sold his car to B, but the latter failed to register the car under his name. While B was driving the car, it met an accident resulting in injuries to C. Who may be liable?
P appointed A, his agent to manage his business in the United States of America. A died and his son, S, managed the same until P could appoint another agent to personally take over. The agency of S is one based on:
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT No. 1. B stole the title, forged his signature and transferred it under his name. TCT No. 2 was issued under his name. He sold it to C who registered under his name. When returned to the Philippine in 2010, he discovered that his title was transferred to another. Can he recover the same?
On June 5, 2000, Jose Dizon was supposed to deliver to Ruben Samia a specified red car. There was no delivery however, on said date. On June 15, 2000, the garage of the car collapsed because of an earthquake and the car was totally destroyed. Is Jose Dizon liable?
Magdalene and Shantung Company entered into a contract of agency before the consul general of the Philippines in Singapore. They stipulated that Magdalene shall be the administrator of the real properties of Shantung Company in the said country. By virtue of the said contract, Magdalene sold the 1 hectare land of Shantung Company located in Singapore to Mayhem Real Estate Corporation without any special power of attorney. The said contract of sale was executed before the vice consul of the Philippines in Singapore. Under the laws of Singapore, the sale of a real property by an agent without a special power of attorney is valid. Shantung Company filed a suit for the annulment of the contract of sale on the ground that Magdalene has no authority to sell the property. If you were the judge, which of the following courses of action should you take?