Scribd
Upload
330 views4 pages

Third-Party Liability in Contract Breach

Article 1314 establishes that a third party who induces someone to breach a contract can be held liable for damages to the other contracting party, provided the contract is valid and the third party is aware of it. The concept of tortious interference is highlighted through case law, emphasizing that unjustified interference with contractual relations can lead to legal liability. Article 1315 further clarifies that contracts are perfected by mere consent, binding parties to fulfill both express stipulations and all consequences aligned with good faith and law.

Uploaded by

Ridmd Tres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
330 views4 pages

Third-Party Liability in Contract Breach

Article 1314 establishes that a third party who induces someone to breach a contract can be held liable for damages to the other contracting party, provided the contract is valid and the third party is aware of it. The concept of tortious interference is highlighted through case law, emphasizing that unjustified interference with contractual relations can lead to legal liability. Article 1315 further clarifies that contracts are perfected by mere consent, binding parties to fulfill both express stipulations and all consequences aligned with good faith and law.

Uploaded by

Ridmd Tres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Article 1314.

Any third person who induces another to violate his contract


shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. (n)

Sinumang magsulsol sa isa na labagin ang kanyang kontrata ay


mananagot sa pinsala na naidulot sa kabilang partido.

Liability of third person responsible for breach of contract.

This is a rule of American law. It is also proper under the general principles
of the Philippine law, because a contractual right is property. Article 1314
recognizes an instance when a stranger to a contract can be sued for
damages for his unwarranted interference with the contract. It
presupposes that the contract interfered with is valid and the third person
has knowledge of the existence of the contract. It is not required in the
third person gain as long as there is no sufficient justification in the
interference or inducement.

Ex.

S agreed to sell his parcel of land to B for P1,000,000. S sells the land to C
instead because of the inducement of D.

In this case, B can sue D for damages. However, the liability of D for
damages cannot be more than that of S for the latter’s violation of his
contract. To hold D liable for damages in excess of those that can be
recovered against S would be unjust.

At most, D would be solidarily liable with S.

The source of the obligation or liability of D will be based on the theory of


quasi-delict.

The tort or wrongful conduct is known as “interference with contractual


relations.’’ It presupposes that the contract interfered with is valid and the
third person has knowledge of the existence of the contract or must have
known of it after a reasonable inquiry.

The word “induce’’ in the provision refers to situations where a person


causes another to choose one course of conduct by persuasion or
intimidation. The interference or inducement gives rise to liabilities for
damages because it violates the property rights of a party in a contract to
reap the benefits that should result therefrom.

Injunction is the appropriate remedy to prevent a wrongful interference


with contracts by strangers to such contracts where the legal remedy is
insufficient and the resulting injury is irreparable.

What is Behind or Reason for the law


This article gives an instance when a stranger to a contract can be
sued of his unwarranted interference. Whoever is injured may properly
sue for damages.

Now let’s discuss about

TORT INTERFERENCE. Contracts are binding between and among the


parties who entered into the same. The parties therefore are expected to
comply with the contract in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
Contract is a source of obligation and has the force of law between the
contracting parties.

The case of So Ping Bun vs. Court of Appeals illustrates the concept of
tortious interference through the actions of So Ping Bun, who interfered
with the lease contracts between Tek Hua Enterprising Corp. (Tek Hua) and
Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. (DCCSI).

The essential elements of tortious interference identified in this case


include: 1. Existence of a Valid Contract: There were valid lease contracts
between Tek Hua and DCCSI. 2. Knowledge of the Contract by the Third
Party: So Ping Bun, as the grandson of the original lessee, was aware of
the existing lease agreements. 3. Interference Without Legal Justification:
So Ping Bun's actions in securing new lease contracts with DCCSI for his
own business, Trendsetter Marketing, were deemed to be without legal
justification, leading to the nullification of those contracts.

The appellate court concluded that So Ping Bun's actions deprived Tek Hua
of its property rights, satisfying the elements of tortious interference, and
thus he was held liable for his interference. This case underscores the
legal principle that individuals must respect existing contractual
relationships and that unjustified interference can result in legal liability.

Discussion:

Interference with Contractual Relations- This article is known in the law of


torts as interference with contractual relations. The liability incurred by
the intermeddler cannot be more than the liability incurred by the party in
whose behalf he intermeddled. Otherwise, it will result to injustice.

Concept

Tortious interference refers to a legal claim that arises when one


party intentionally disrupts the contractual or business relationships of
another party, causing economic harm.
Article 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from the
moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been
expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to
their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. (1258)

Artikulo 1315. Ang mga kontrata na naperpekto sa pamamagitan


ng pahintulot, at mula sa panahon na ang mga patido ay obligado
hindi lamang sa katuparan ng nabangit na stipulasyon kundi pati
na rin sa mga kahihinatnan na kung saan, ayon sa kanilang likas,
ay pag sunod ng buong pagtitiwala, pag gamit at batas.

Codal Dissection

GR: contracts are perfected by mere consent

Effect: From that moment the parties are bound

1) not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated

2) but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature,


may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS ACCORDING TO PERFECTION

(1)Consensual contract or that which is perfected by mere consent of


the parties.

EFFECT OF PERFECTION OF THE CONTRACT

From the moment the parties come to an agreement on a definite subject


matter and valid consideration they are bound not only:

(1) to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated

EXAMPLE

Anne sold a horse to Bryan for Php 15, 000. The details of this contract as
regards the place of delivery of the horse and payment of the price, the
time of delivery and payment, etc. are not included. These details are
furnished by law and have been taken up in the various provision of the
Code.

(2) to all the consequences which according to their nature,


may be in keeping with good faith, usage, and law. (Art.
1315.)
EXAMPLE
Anne agreed to sell his horse to Bryan. It was stipulated that Anne
should deliver the horse to Bryan the next day.
In this case, Anne has the obligation to deliver the horse the next
day as expressly stipulated in the contract. Anne has also the
obligation to take care of the horse pending delivery and to warrant
that he has the right to sell the horse although nothing is said about
the obligation in the contract as this is in keeping with good faith,
usage, and law.

Common questions

Powered by AI

According to Article 1315, contracts are binding from the moment they are perfected by consent because from this point, the parties are committed to fulfilling not only the express terms but also all consequences that align with good faith, usage, and law. This principle ensures that contracts have legal force and guide parties' behavior beyond written terms .

To hold a third person liable for tortious interference with a contract, three conditions must be satisfied: 1) there must be an existing valid contract, 2) the third person must know or should reasonably know of this contract, and 3) the third person's interference must lack legal justification .

The liability of a third party in interference with a contract can be equal to that of the interfering contract party if the third person's actions led to the contract's breach without sufficient justification. However, their liability cannot exceed that of the original contracting party unless they also committed additional independent torts .

In contract law, from the moment a contract is perfected by consent, parties are obliged not only to fulfill what is explicitly stated but also to adhere to all implied consequences that follow good faith, usage, and legal norms. This ensures that contract performance is fair and respects existing laws and customs .

Article 1314 holds that a third person who induces another to violate his contract is liable for damages to the contracting party. This provision is rooted in the principle that a contractual right is a property right, and interference with the contract violates this right .

Legal remedies for breach of contract due to third-party interference include suing the third party for damages. Additionally, an injunction may be appropriate to prevent further wrongful interference, especially where legal remedies are insufficient and the injury could be irreparable .

The justification under Article 1314 to sue a third party for inducing a contract breach is that a contractual right is considered a property right. Interference with such a right infringes on the property rights of the contract holder, warranting liability for damages .

Knowledge is crucial in determining liability for interference with contractual relations. A third person must know of the valid contract existing between other parties or should reasonably have known about it for their actions to be considered tortious interference .

The case of So Ping Bun vs. Court of Appeals illustrates that tortious interference is recognized when a third party knowingly and unjustifiably undermines existing contractual relationships, causing harm. The judiciary upheld the principles that respect contractual autonomy and penalized the wrong without overshadowing the offending third party's liability over the principal contract breacher .

Tortious interference refers to a third party's intentional disruption of contractual relations between other parties, causing economic harm without legal justification. This is distinct from a breach of contract, where one of the parties involved in the agreement fails to fulfill their obligations .

You might also like