Practice question
A supplier receives the customer’s full payment under a reciprocal contract for identified production equipment, then deliberately refuses delivery altogether. The court finds a fundamental breach defeating the contract’s purpose. The customer seeks judicial resolution and can restore whatever must be returned. The supplier invokes Article 1383, arguing that resolution is barred because damages are another available remedy. What is correct?
- The customer must exhaust every damages action before Article 1191 can apply.
- Any minor irregularity would justify the same relief automatically.
- The customer may finally demand both retention of the contract’s full performance and its termination for the same duty.
- Article 1191 applies only if the supplier was the customer’s guardian.
- Article 1191 resolution is a principal remedy for the substantial reciprocal breach; Article 1383’s subsidiarity does not bar it on that theory.
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.