#3 LAUDICO vs. ARIAS FACTS: •
• • •
•
•
•
Vicente Arias, who owned 2 buildings in Carriedo, on his behalf and that of his co-owners, wrote a letter to Mamerto Laudico, giving him an option to lease the building to a 3rd person, person, and transmitting to him a tentative contract in writing containing the conditions upon which the proposed lease should be made. Laudico presented red !arden as the part" desiring to lease the building. #ther conditions were added and counter-propositions counter-propositions were made. $hese negotiations were carried on b" correspondence and verball" at interviews held with Vicente, no definite agreement having been arrived at until Laudico finall" wrote a letter to Arias on March %, &'&', advising him that all his propositions, as amended and supplemented, supplemented, were accepted. (t is admitted that this letter was re ceived b" Arias thru special deliver" at 2)*3 p.m. of that da". #n that same da", at &&)2* a.m., Arias had, in turn, written a letter to Laudico, withdrawing the offer to lease the building. Laudico pra"s that the defendants be compelled to e+ecute the contract of lease of the building in uestion.
RULING: • •
Lower court
endered /udgment in favor of Laudico. SC eversed the decision of the lower court and absolved the defendants from the complaint.
0hether a contract was created between the parties through the letter of acceptance sent b" Laudico1
ISSUE:
HELD/RATIO: NO! •
•
(n the Civil Code, an acceptance b" letter does not have an" effect until it comes to the nowledge of the offeror. $herefore, before he learns of the acceptance, the offeror is not "et bound b" it and can still withdraw the offer. Conseuentl", when Arias Arias wrote to Laudico, withdrawing the offer, he had the right to do so, inasmuch as he had not "et receive notice of the acceptance. And when the notice of the acceptance wa s received b" Arias, it no longer had an" effect, as the offer was not then in e+istence, the same having alread" been withdrawn. $here was no meeting of the minds, through offer and acceptance, which is the essence of the contract. 0hile there was an offer, there was no acceptance, and when the latter was made and could have a binding effect, the offer was then lacing. $hough both the offer and the acceptance e+isted, the" did not meet to give birth to a contract. 0hen Arias received the letter of acceptance, his letter of revocation had alread" been received. $he latter was sent through a messenger at &&)2* &&)2* in the morning directl" to the office of Laudico and should have been received immediatel" on that same morning, or at least, before Arias received the letter of acceptance. #n this point, the C do not give an" credence to the testimon" of Laudico that he received this letter of revocation at 3)34 in the afternoon of that da".
DOCTRINE: •
•
A contract is created through the meeting of the minds of the parties and b" communicating the acceptance of the offer to the other part". An offer can be withdrawn and must be communicated to the offeree before the acceptance of the offeree is received b" the offeror.
