Practice question
A caterer agrees to supply a wedding dinner at a specified venue and time, knowing that service at that wedding is the controlling reason for the contract. The caterer fails to appear and offers the food the next afternoon. No demand was made during the event. Which answer best addresses legal delay?
- There can never be delay without a prior lawsuit.
- A written demand is always required even when time is the controlling motive.
- The next-day offer necessarily cures every injury.
- Article 1169 dispenses with demand where the time of performance was a controlling motive, as the facts establish.
- Wedding contracts are outside the law of obligations.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 1165–1174,1191–1192,1381,1383.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_167519_2015.html — Wellex Group v U-Land Airlines, GR 167519, January 14 2015, main opinion: Article 1191 resolution as principal remedy.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/dec2015/gr_202947_2015.html — ASB Realty Corporation v Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership, GR 202947, December 9 2015, main opinion: substantial breach and distinction of rescission contexts.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.