Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Hanlon V Haussemann and Beam

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 4kG5uPYk
    Hanlon filed a case to compel Hauseemann and Beam to account for profits from rehabilitating a mining company and to surrender shares and dividends. Previously, the parties agreed Hanlon would provide $50,000 and Hauseemann/Beam $25,000 by a certain date to rehabilitate the mine. Hanlon failed to raise the funds so Hauseemann/Beam arranged alternative financing. The court ruled Hanlon was not entitled to profits because time was of the essence in the contract, and his failure to meet the deadline absolved Hauseemann/Beam of obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Hanlon V Haussemann and Beam

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 4kG5uPYk
    28 views1 page
    Hanlon filed a case to compel Hauseemann and Beam to account for profits from rehabilitating a mining company and to surrender shares and dividends. Previously, the parties agreed Hanlon would provide $50,000 and Hauseemann/Beam $25,000 by a certain date to rehabilitate the mine. Hanlon failed to raise the funds so Hauseemann/Beam arranged alternative financing. The court ruled Hanlon was not entitled to profits because time was of the essence in the contract, and his failure to meet the deadline absolved Hauseemann/Beam of obligations.

    Original Description:

    Law

    Original Title

    Hanlon v Haussemann and Beam

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Hanlon filed a case to compel Hauseemann and Beam to account for profits from rehabilitating a mining company and to surrender shares and dividends. Previously, the parties agreed Hanlon would provide $50,000 and Hauseemann/Beam $25,000 by a certain date to rehabilitate the mine. Hanlon failed to raise the funds so Hauseemann/Beam arranged alternative financing. The court ruled Hanlon was not entitled to profits because time was of the essence in the contract, and his failure to meet the deadline absolved Hauseemann/Beam of obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    Hanlon V Haussemann and Beam

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 4kG5uPYk
    Hanlon filed a case to compel Hauseemann and Beam to account for profits from rehabilitating a mining company and to surrender shares and dividends. Previously, the parties agreed Hanlon would provide $50,000 and Hauseemann/Beam $25,000 by a certain date to rehabilitate the mine. Hanlon failed to raise the funds so Hauseemann/Beam arranged alternative financing. The court ruled Hanlon was not entitled to profits because time was of the essence in the contract, and his failure to meet the deadline absolved Hauseemann/Beam of obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Hanlon v.

    Haussemann and Bean 40 Phil 796

    Fact:
    In this case, RY Hanlon filed an action to compel Hauseemann and AW Beam in order to
    account the income they gained in rehabilitating the plant of Benguet Consolidated Mining
    Company and for them to surrender the 50,000 shares of stock of the company, with dividends.
    Previously, Han, Haussermann, Beam and Sellner stipulated that 75,000 was needed to rehabilitate
    the mine in which 50,000 would come to Hanoy and 25,000 to Haussermann and Beam.

    They were to receive compensation in the form of shares of stock for the services rendered in the
    flotation of this proposition. The funds were needed on a certain date. More so, it was also stated
    in the contract that Haussermann and Beam would be discharged if Sellner could not provide the
    amount due from him within the time frame stipulated.

    Unfortunately, Hanlon was unable to raise the P75,000.00, so that Haussermann and Beam made
    arrangements to finance the rehabilitation of the mine. Because of this new arrangement, the
    company became profitable that it was able to pay dividends. Because of this, the value of the
    company’s stocks appreciated.

    Issue:
    WON Hanlon is entitled to an accounting for his share in the profits of the company

    Held:
    No.

    Hanlon is not entitled to an accounting for his share in the profits of the company
    Haussermann and Beam are absolved.

    In the equitable doctrine, when the contracting parties have treated time as of the essence
    of the contract, the delinquency will not be excused and specific performance will not be granted.
    BUT, if it appears that time has not been made of the essence of the contract, equity will relieve
    from the delinquency and specific performance may be granted, due compensation being made for
    the damage caused by the delay.

    Note: Time is of the essence of the contract for the sale of an option on mining property,
    or a contract for the sale thereof, even though there is no express stipulation to that effect. The
    same idea is applicable to a contract like that now under consideration which provides for the
    rehabilitation of a mining plant with funds to be supplied by the contractor within a limited period.

    You might also like