Please answer each given questions by number. 1. Cat sold her house to Dina. They agreed that Dina will pay 20% downpayment and then the balance will be paid in 10 monthly installments. The parties were best of friends so neither of them saw the need to put the sale in writing right away. When Dina was down to her last 5 installment payments, Cat and Dina got into a big fight and Cat decided she did not want to sell the house to Dina anymore. Dina threatened to sue Cat. Fearful that she might be dragged in court and get tangled up in litigation, Cat was forced to push through with the sale. Three years later, Cat sues Dina for annulment of contract of sale on the ground of vitiated consent. Cat claims that Dina's threat to sue her intimidated her into selling the house. Was there vitiated consent? 2. To celebrate his 15th birthday, actor Abe, who has made a fortune at a young age, wanted to buy Bob's vintage car. Bob is Abe's fellow actor, who just turned 13. The vintage car was valued at Php5Million. Bob's mother, who is in charge of Bob's properties, offered to sell the car to Abe for Php10Million. Because he wanted the car badly, Abe agreed. Hence, on the day of Abe's 15th birthday on December 1, 2022, Abe, together with Bob and Bob's mom, went to a notary public to execute a deed of sale. Abe signed on his behalf and Bob's mom acted as Bob's guardian. The deed was notarized. Suppose that on December 2, 2022, Abe's guardian discovered that Abe paid Php10Million for a vintage car that is only worth Php5Million and wanted Abe to return the car and recover the money. However, Abe used his charm and influenced the guardian to instead ratify the sale. So, Abe's guardian and Bob's guardian executed another deed of sale and had the same notarized. Is the second deed of sale rescissible, voidable, unenforceable, or void? 3. On December 1, 2022 Ed borrowed Php1MIllion cash from Fran. The parties agreed that the loan will be paid on January 1, 2023 without need for demand, upon Fran's return from her Carribean Cruise. Come January 1, 2023, there was no news of Fran ever returning from the Cruise. Her family and friends are also clueless as to her whereabouts. Considering that the loan fell due on January 1, 2023 without need for demand, Ed is aware that from that moment on, damages in the form of compensatory interest will start to run. If you were Ed, what is the best recourse under the law in order to prevent incurring any more liability from the loan? 4. On December 1, 2022 Ed borrowed Php1MIllion cash from Fran. The parties agreed that the loan will be paid on January 1, 2023 without need for demand, upon Fran's return from her Carribean Cruise. Come January 1, 2023, there was no news of Fran ever returning from the Cruise. Her family and friends are also clueless as to her whereabouts. Considering that the loan fell due on January 1, 2023 without need for demand, Ed is aware that from that moment on, damages in the form of compensatory interest will start to run. Should Ed decide to deliver payment to Fran's children, what is the status of that payment? 5. Bong owns a trucking business. He hired Robin as one of his drivers. Robin, a grade school graduate, could not understand English. Be that as it may, Bong made Robin sign a contract that is written in English. In that contract, Robin acknowledges that: he is amenable to being paid below minimum wage; that he will not be a regular employee of Bong's trucking business; and that he is not entitled to benefits. Before a notary public, the terms and conditions are explained to Robin in Filipino, a language Robin knows. Robin's wife was present and signed an affidavit where she attested to the fact that the contract was explained to Robin in a language he is familiar with. Later, Robin realizes that the terms of the agreement are contrary to labor laws, he then demands from Bong the payment of benefits, claiming that he was defrauded into entering the contract because he did not understand English. Bong claims that Robin is no longer entitled to additional compensation because he voluntarily agreed to the terms of the contract. Bong further argues that Robin is a party to an illegal contract, because the terms thereof are contrary to labor laws. Thus, according to Bong, he and Robin are in pari delicto and the law should leave them as they are. Is Bong's argument correct?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 In the given scenario it can be argued that there was vitiated consent on the part of Cat Vitiated consent refers to a situation where consent to a contract is given under duress undue influence fra... View the full answer