Kstudent’s Name: Joanah Louiela O. Boleche Article/ Topic: Statute of Fraud Case Title: Shoemaker V La Tondeña, Inc., 68 Phil 24. Facts of the Case: Plaintiff Harry Ives Shoemaker Filed a Second Amended Complaint

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 129

Words: 375

Pages: 2

Category: Other Topics

Date Submitted: 02/04/2014 04:41 AM

Report This Essay

I have no paper yet.. but can i skim through your site?Student’s Name: Joanah Louiela O. Boleche

Article/ Topic: Statute of Fraud

Case Title: Shoemaker v La Tondeña, Inc., 68 Phil 24.

Facts of the Case:

Plaintiff Harry Ives Shoemaker filed a second amended complaint against La Tondeña, Inc., in which, on the facts therein alleged, he prayed that judgment be rendered against said defendant, sentencing it to pay him. To said amended complaint the defendant company interposed a demurrer base on the ground that the facts therein alleged do not constitute a cause of action. In sustaining the demurrer interposed to the second amended complaint, the court a quo based its action on the ground that the facts alleged in said amended complaint do not constitute a cause of action for the reason that plaintiff’s action rests on an oral contract which, by its nature, is unenforceable by action as it is included within the statute of frauds.

Issue:

Whether or not the facts alleged in the second amended complaint constitute a cause of action.

Held:

Yes, the facts alleged in the second amended complaint constitute a cause of action.

In the present case it is hypothetically admitted that plaintiff complied within the year with all the obligations he had bound himself to fulfill under the modified oral contract. It is also hypothetically admitted that the defendant corporation benefited from the fulfillment of said obligations by the plaintiff; hence, it cannot, in equity and justice, avoid its own obligations assumed under the same modified oral contract, for to allow it to do so under the protection of the statute of frauds would make of the latter a shield of and not a protection against frauds.

For the foregoing considerations, the SC is of the opinion and so hold that when, in an oral contract which, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from the execution thereof, one of the contracting parties has complied within the year with the obligations...