Sellner v. Gonzalez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, George C. Sellner, was engaged by the defendant, Jose Gonzalez, to find a purchaser for his property. Sellner sent a purchaser, and the property was sold. Procedural History: The case was tried in the lower court, which found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him a commission of 2% and an additional P3,000 over the minimum price fixed in the original offer. The Appeal: The defendant appealed the decision of the lower court, questioning the plaintiff's right to recover the excess of P3,000 over the minimum price.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant is liable for the excess of P3,000 over the minimum price fixed in his original offer to the plaintiff, given that the plaintiff secured a purchaser for the property. Whether the defendant, by accepting the services of the plaintiff without repudiating the conditions upon which those services were rendered, is bound by an implied contract to pay the stipulated compensation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The defendant was held liable for the commission and the excess amount, based on the principle of implied contract arising from the acceptance of services under stipulated conditions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability for the excess amount and commission: The Court held that the defendant's conduct in accepting the services of the plaintiff in finding a purchaser for his property, without previously repudiating the letter from the plaintiff wherein the conditions for furnishing the purchaser were set forth, left no room for doubt that he accepted the services. By accepting the services without first repudiating the express terms and conditions upon which these services were rendered, the defendant must be held to have accepted the services under an implied contract to pay therefor the amounts stipulated by the plaintiff when they were rendered. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the commission of 2% as allowed by the trial court, as well as the excess of P3,000 over the minimum price fixed in the defendant's original offer. The trial judge's findings of fact, based on his observation of the witnesses, were accepted by the Supreme Court, leading to the affirmation of the judgment. On the existence of an implied contract: The Court found that the defendant's actions demonstrated an acceptance of the plaintiff's services under the conditions presented. The failure to repudiate the plaintiff's terms before accepting the benefit of the services created an implied contract. This implied contract obligated the defendant to compensate the plaintiff according to the terms initially laid out by the plaintiff. The principle applied is that one cannot benefit from services rendered under specific terms and then refuse to honor those terms, especially when there was an opportunity to reject the terms upfront but was not exercised.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the defendant, by accepting the services of the plaintiff in finding a purchaser for his property without previously repudiating the conditions set forth by the plaintiff, implicitly agreed to the terms of compensation. Therefore, the defendant was bound to pay the plaintiff the agreed-upon commission and the excess over the minimum price.