Toyota Shaw v CA| May 23, 1995| Davide, J June 17 at 9:30 Bernardo informed Sosa’s son that pick-up
rnardo informed Sosa’s son that pick-up time
for the car is moved from 10am to 2pm Private-respondent Sosa wanted to buy a Toyota Lite Ace but Sosa went to Toyota Shaw at 2pm waited an hour and was later encountered difficulties finding a car dealer with an available told by Bernardo that the unit would not be arriving unit o Bernardo explains that “nasulot ang unit ng ibang o Toyota Shaw branch informed him that they have one malakas” in stock. Toyota then gave Sosa the option to pay full price in cash o Sosa emphasized to Bernardo, the sales rep, that he o Sosa refused asked for refund of the downpayment needed that car no later than June 17 1989 Toyota obliged and issued Far East Bank He planned to use the car to go to Marinduque check for the full amount with a balikbayan on the 18th to celebrate his Sosa indicated on the check voucher that birthday on the 19th acceptance was w/o prejudice to our future Expressed worry that if he did not have a new claims for damages car he would be a ‘laughing stock’ in his town Sosa then sent 2 letters on June 27 and Nov 4 June 4, 1989, Bernardo assured Sosa regarding promptness of o Demanding the refund of the downpayment w/ delivery and “Agreement between Mr. Sosa & Bernardo of interest to be paid in 5 day or else legal action Toyota Shaw” (exhibit A) was executed containing: o Demanding 1mil representing interest and damages to o Signed by Sosa’s son on the former’s behalf and be paid in 3 days or else legal action Bernardo Nov 20, Sosa filed a claim for damages under Art 19 and 21 at o Downpayent of 100k to be paid on 15th June RTC Marinduque o Yellow Toyota Lite Ace will be ready for pick up on the o Toyota claims no sale was made 17th of June at 10am o Bernardo was acting in his personal capacity and Downpayment was paid on the 15th and a Vehicle Sales had no authority to sign Exhibit A Proposal (VSP) was issued by Bernardo containing ff: o VSP indicated no date of delivery o That it was signed by Sosa’s son under the subheading o B.A. financing disapproved the credit agreement “CONFRME” w/Sosa hence no delivery could be made o “Delivery terms” left blank RTC and CA ruled in favor of Sosa o Initial cash outlay broken down as follows o Exhibit A was a valid and perfected contract Downpayment = 53.148K, Insurance o Toyota estopped from claiming that Bernardo was not =13.97k, Other fees = 33.282k authorize due to manifestations that he was acting as o Rest of balance of 274k to be financed by B.A. its agent Finance o “Conditions of sale” W/N Exhibit A was a valid contract – NO Sale is subject to an available unit There was no obligation for Toyota to deliver a determinate Price is subject to change w/o notice thing nor a correlative obligation for Sosa to pay a price certain Price prevailing and in effect at the time of The only price indicated in Exhibit A was the downpayment selling will apply o If it was intended for a sale it could only refer to a sale o Checked and approved by Quirante, Sales Supervisor on installment basis But nothing was mentioned about the full o Such was aborted due to the not approval of the credit purchase price o Therefore the VSP created no demandable right in Nor anything mentioned on the manner of favor of Sosa the installment Therefore the non-delivery did not cause a o Definiteness of the manner of payment and the legally indemnifiable injury price itself are essential elements for a valid Claim is but a misplaced sense of pride and ego contract of sale o He should not have announce his plan to buy a car if he Failure to agree on mode of payment is knew he would not be able to pay the full purchase tantamount to a failure to agree on price price No meeting of the minds between Sosa and Toyota o Sosa didn’t even sign it, it was his son HELD: RTC and CA REVERSED o Clear from the title that he was dealing with Bernardo from Toyota Shaw and not Toyota Shaw itself No misrepresentation on the part of Bernardo that he had authority to sell Sosa knew that Bernardo was a mere sale rep and therefore a mere agent of Toyota o It was incumbent on Sosa to act w/ ordinary diligence to know the exact extent of Bernardo’s authority A person dealing w/ an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent At most Exhibit A may be considered as a part of the initial phase of negotiation o The second part of the negotiation phase was the VSP The VSP however indicated a downpayement of 53k and the rest of the balance to be financed by B.A. Finance o In a sale on installment basis financed by a financing company, the financing company is a party to the sale as it subrogates the seller w/r to the payment of the installment buyer Since B.A. Finance did not approve the credit of Sosa there was no meeting of the minds on the sale on installment basis Bernardo’s explanation for the non-release of the vehicle - that “may mas malakas” - does not inspire belief VSP was a mere proposal