Ramos ordered shares of stock through a brokerage, but delivery was delayed beyond the agreed period. Ramos sought to rescind the contract. However, the brokerage's rules, which both parties had agreed to abide by, provided an alternative remedy to rescission in this situation. Specifically, the rules stated that the buying broker must provide written notice and one business day to deliver before other actions can be taken. Therefore, Ramos did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract. The court concluded that the right to rescind can be waived, as it was in this case by agreeing to abide by the exchange rules.
Ramos ordered shares of stock through a brokerage, but delivery was delayed beyond the agreed period. Ramos sought to rescind the contract. However, the brokerage's rules, which both parties had agreed to abide by, provided an alternative remedy to rescission in this situation. Specifically, the rules stated that the buying broker must provide written notice and one business day to deliver before other actions can be taken. Therefore, Ramos did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract. The court concluded that the right to rescind can be waived, as it was in this case by agreeing to abide by the exchange rules.
Ramos ordered shares of stock through a brokerage, but delivery was delayed beyond the agreed period. Ramos sought to rescind the contract. However, the brokerage's rules, which both parties had agreed to abide by, provided an alternative remedy to rescission in this situation. Specifically, the rules stated that the buying broker must provide written notice and one business day to deliver before other actions can be taken. Therefore, Ramos did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract. The court concluded that the right to rescind can be waived, as it was in this case by agreeing to abide by the exchange rules.
Ramos ordered shares of stock through a brokerage, but delivery was delayed beyond the agreed period. Ramos sought to rescind the contract. However, the brokerage's rules, which both parties had agreed to abide by, provided an alternative remedy to rescission in this situation. Specifically, the rules stated that the buying broker must provide written notice and one business day to deliver before other actions can be taken. Therefore, Ramos did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract. The court concluded that the right to rescind can be waived, as it was in this case by agreeing to abide by the exchange rules.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Legal
Case Title(s) and question/problem/issue Legal Provisions/Legal
Why is this a problem? Conclusion Citation presented by the principle or Rule Involved case(s) RAMOS v. CA May Ramos rescind the CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc. sold to LLL The right of a party to No. The right of a party to rescind a contract contract? 2,650 shares. LLL bought the shares for rescind a contract in case in case one of the obligors should not 179 S 719 the account of its clients, including one of the obligors should comply with what is incumbent upon him Alfredo Ramos. CMS failed to deliver the not comply with what is may be waived by contract, as in this case, shares of stocks within the agreed period, incumbent upon him may be where CMS and LLL had agreed to abide but LLL did not demand delivery. With waived by contract with the Rules and Regulations of the respect to Ramos, LLL alleged that as a Exchange of which they were members, result of CMS’s failure to deliver the Section 1, Article V of the which rules provide for a remedy, other than shares within the agreed time frame, Rules and Regulations of rescission, when a party fails to deliver on Ramos cancelled his order, disauthorized the Exchange provides that another’s order to buy shares. LLL from accepting a subsequent delivery in the event of a Selling by CMS, and agreed to hold LLL free Member failing to make from any liability for his non-acceptance delivery within a reasonable of the shares. Ramos averred that he was period of time of shares sold justified in cancelling his order because under delayed delivery both CMS and LLL defaulted in contract, it shall be the delivering the shares to him. Ramos Buying Member’s duty to alleged that the shares were ordered by the advise the Selling Member Alakor Corporation of which he is only in writing, giving him one the Vice-President and Treasurer, so he is (1) full business day from not personally liable on the transaction. the time of receipt of said letter of demand, to make Petitioner invokes Articles 1191, 1165 delivery. and 1169 of the Civil Code on the right of a party to rescind a contract in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
Law School Survival Guide (Volume I of II) - Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales: Law School Survival Guides