(A) The bus liner since the goods were not lost while being transported. S sues Trek Bus Liner for contractual breach but the latter argues that S has no cause of action based on such breach since the loss occurred while the goods awaited transport. That night, however, a robber broke into the bodega and stole S’s boxes. Meanwhile, the boxes were stored in the bus liner’s bodega. (6) S delivered 10 boxes of cellphones to Trek Bus Liner, for transport from Manila to Ilocos Sur on the following day, for which S paid the freightage. (C) B, M, and N, being indorsers by delivery of a bearer note (B) N, being O's immediate negotiator of a bearer note (A) M and N since they may be assumed to know of M's bankruptcy B had known that M was bankrupt when M issued the note. Signed, M." M negotiated the note by delivery to B, B to N, and N to O. (5) M makes a promissory note that states: "I, M, promise to pay Php5,000.00 to B or bearer. (D) No, since pre-emptive rights are governed by the articles of incorporation. (C) Yes, since the denial of the right under the By-laws is binding on T. (B) Yes, but the denial of his pre-emptive right extends only to 500 shares. (A) No, since the By-Laws cannot deny a shareholder his right of pre-emption. The company claims, however, that its By-laws deny T any right of pre-emption. increased its capital stocks from Php10 Million to Php15 Million and, in the process, issued 1,000 new shares divided into Common Shares "B" and Common Shares "C." T, a stockholder owning 500 shares, insists on buying the newly issued shares through a right of pre-emption. (D) Yes, because an election to require something to be done in lieu of payment of money does not affect negotiability. (C) Yes, because the note is really payable to B or his order, the other provisions being merely optional. (B) No, because it authorizes the sale of collateral securities in case the note is not paid at maturity. (A) No, because the exercise of the option to pay lies with A, the maker and debtor. It says: "Subject to my option, I promise to pay B Php1 Million or his order or give Php1 Million worth of cement or to authorize him to sell my house worth Php1 Million. (3) A writes a promissory note in favor of his creditor, B. (D) No, since X Shipping neither incurred a total loss nor abandoned its ship. (C) Yes, since the extent of the ship’s damage was greater than that of the value of the lost cargo. (B) No, since each cargo owner has a separate and individual claim for damages. (A) Yes, since under that doctrine, the value of the lost cargo and the damage to the ship can be set-off. The cargo owners filed a suit against X Shipping but it invoked the doctrine of limited liability since its vessel suffered an Php80 Million damage, more than the collective value of all lost cargo. The ship itself suffered damages estimated at Php80 Million. ran aground off the coast of Cebu during a storm and lost all its cargo amounting to Php50 Million. (D) No, since the attack on P took place when the bus was at a stop-over. (C) Yes, since the bus is liable for anything that goes wrong in the course of a trip. (B) No, since the carrier's crew could not have foreseen the attack. (A) Yes, since the carrier's crew did nothing to protect a passenger who remained in the bus during the stop-over. Does he have cause to sue Sentinel Liner? When P rudely declined, V attacked him, resulting in P suffering from bruises and contusions. At this point, V, a vendor, sneaked into the bus and offered P some refreshments. P decided, however, to remain in the bus, the door of which was not locked. At a stop-over in Tarlac, the bus driver, the conductor, and the passengers disembarked for lunch. (1) P rode a Sentinel Liner bus going to Baguio from Manila. Bar Examination Questionnaire for Commercial Law
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |