Fredrich C.

Jimenez
5th year – BSECE
ECE Laws, Contracts, and Ethics (September 24, 2020 7-8pm)
Activity 5
I. Pages 361-362 which contains:
1. Definitions
a. Form of contract – refers to the manner in which a contract is executed or
manifested. The contract may be oral, or in writing, or partly oral and partly in
writing. If in writing, it may be in a public or a private instrument.
b. Informal contract – informal or common contract or that which may be entered
into in whatever form provided all the essential requisites for their validity are
present. This refers only to consensual contracts, such as the contract of sale.
An informal contract may be oral or written.
2. Discussions
a. There are two form of contracts, one is General rule, contracts are binding and
therefore enforceable reciprocally by the contracting parties, whatever may be
the form in which the contract has been entered into, provided all the three
essential requisites for their validity are present. Next is Exceptions, the form
however is required in the following cases; when the law requires that a contract
be in some form to be a valid; when the law requires that a contract be in some
form to be enforceable or proved in a certain way; or when the law requires that a
contact be in some form for convenience of the parties or for the purpose of
affecting third persons.
b. It is generally recognized that to be a written contract, all its terms must be in
writing. So, a contract partly in writing and partly oral is, in legal effect, an oral
contract.
3. Problems
a. The sale is valid because it was in writing even though it was not made to appear
in a public instrument.
b. The rights may acquire by the contracting parties is in the rules regarding form of
contract; when the law requires that a contract be in form to be valid and that a
contract be in some for the convenience of the parties or for the purpose of
affecting third persons. In other words, the law does not require accomplishment
of certain acts of contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or
contract but only to insecure its efficacy so that after the existence of the act or
contract had been admitted, the party bound may be ordered by the court in
which action or suit is filed to execute the document.
II. Page 370
1. Definitions
a. Reformation – is the that remedy by means of which a written instrument is
amended or rectified so as to express or conform to the real agreement or
intention of the parties when by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or
accident, the instrument fails to express such agreement or intention.
b. Mutual mistake – The mistake must be of fact, such mistake must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence, the mistake must be mutual, that is, common to
both parties to the instrument and the mistake must cause the failure of the
instrument to express their true intention. If the mutual mistake is of law, the
remedy is annulment.
2. Discussions
a. A written instrument is amended or rectified so as to express or conform to the
real agreement or intention of the parties when by reason of mistake, fraud,
inequitable conduct, or accident. The rationale of the doctrine is that it would be
unjust and inequitable to allow the enforcement of a written instrument which
does not reflect or disclose the real meeting of the minds of the parties.
b. In the reformation, there has been a meeting of the minds of the parties; hence, a
contract exists but the written instrument purporting to embody the contract does
not express the true intention of the parties by reason of mistake, fraud,
inequitable conduct, or accident.
3. Problems
a. The instances resulted to mutual mistake of fact which the written instrument
failed to express the true intention of the contracting parties. S can ask for the
reformation of the contract due to the mutual mistake even though B agreed to
receive the horse X.
b. First, the seller’s reformation will only be granted if he/she was mistaken in good
faith. In this case, the mistake is only acted by one party not mutual. Next case is
when one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that the instrument
did not state their real agreement, but concealed that fact from the former that
constitutes fraud, the instrument may be reformed. And lastly is when the person
who is drafting the written instrument tends to practice ignorance, lack of skill,
negligence or bad faith while drafting the contract which resulted to the mistake
which does not express the true intention of the parties, the courts may order that
the instrument be reformed.