reviewers's copyright to the authors.Full description
digest
DigestFull description
Full description
This is the digest of the Neypes v. Court of Appeals where the Neypes Rule originated. It is discussed for Civil Procedure.Full description
ObliconFull description
People V. Dy Case digest
ggFull description
Civil ProcedureFull description
Prov remFull description
INFANTE INFANTE V CUNANAN DOCTRINE: Agents found a buyer who was willing to ur!hase at the ter" se!i#ed Infante too$ ad%antage of the ser%i!es rendered by the agents but ri!$ed the" to be absol%ed fro" aying !o""ission This !annot ser%e as a basis for Infante to es!ae ay"ent of the !o""ission agreed uon FACTS: 1. Infante Infante was the owner of of the land with with a house house built on on it. 2. Cunanan Cunanan and Mijares Mijares were were contracted contracted to sell sell the property property fro fro which they would recei!e recei!e coission. ". #och #oche e a$r a$reed eed to purch purchas ase e the the lot lot but but Infa Infant nte e info inforred ed C % M about her chan$e of ind to sell the lot and had the si$n a docu docue ent nt stat statin in$ $ that that thei theirr auth author orit ity y to sell sell was was alr already eady cancelled. &. Subse'uentl Subse'uently( y( Infante Infante sold the lot lot % house to #oche. #oche. )efendants )efendants herein deanded for their coission. *. +TC ordered ordered Infante to pay coission. CA a,red. Issue: -hether or not petitioner was duty bound to pay coission notwithstandin$ that authority to sell has been cancelled.
+ulin$: 1. A principal principal ay ay withdraw withdraw the authorit authority y $i!en to an a$ent a$ent at will. will. 2. ut respo responde ndents nts a$reed a$reed to cancel cancel the authori authority ty $i!en $i!en to the upon assurance by petitioner that should property be sold to #oche( they would be $i!en coission. ". That That petiti petitione onerr had chan$ed chan$ed her ind e!en if respond respondent ents s had found a buyer who was willin$ to close the deal( is a atter that would $i!e rise to a le$al conse'uence if respondents a$ree to call all o/ to transa ansact ctio ion n in defe eferenc ence to the re'ue e'uest st of the petitioner. &. 0etitio etitioner ner too ad!anta$e ad!anta$e of the ser!ice ser!ices s of respo responde ndents nts(( but belie!in$ that she could e!ade payent of their coission( she ade ade us use e of a ruse ruse by indu induci cin$ n$ the the to si$n si$n the the deed deed of cancellation. This act of sub!ersion cannot be sanctioned and cannot ser!e as basis for petitioner to escape payent of the coissions a$reed upon.