Reference no: EM133338786

Question 1. To celebrate his 15th birthday, actor Abe, who has made a fortune at a young age, wanted to buy Bob's vintage car. Bob is Abe's fellow actor, who just turned 13. The vintage car was valued at Php5Million. Bob's mother, who is in charge of Bob's properties, offered to sell the car to Abe for Php10Million. Because he wanted the car badly, Abe agreed. Hence, on the day of Abe's 15th birthday on December 1, 2022, Abe, together with Bob and Bob's mom, went to a notary public to execute a deed of sale. Abe signed on his behalf and Bob's mom acted as Bob's guardian. The deed was notarized. Is the contract of sale rescissible, voidable, unenforceable or void? Explain

Question 2. In relation to your answer in Question 3, until when may the defect of the contract be challenged, when will the period begin to run and who has the right to file the action?

Question 3. To celebrate his 15th birthday, actor Abe, who has made a fortune at a young age, wanted to buy Bob's vintage car. Bob is Abe's fellow actor, who just turned 13. The vintage car was valued at Php5Million. Bob's mother, who is in charge of Bob's properties, offered to sell the car to Abe for Php10Million. Because he wanted the car badly, Abe agreed. Hence, on the day of Abe's 15th birthday on December 1, 2022, Abe, together with Bob and Bob's mom, went to a notary public to execute a deed of sale. Abe signed on his behalf and Bob's mom acted as Bob's guardian. The deed was notarized. Five years later, Bob wanted to recover the vintage car from Abe. Can Bob challenge the sale for being defective? Why or why not?

Question 4. Cat sold her house to Dina. They agreed that Dina will pay 20% downpayment and then the balance will be paid in 10 monthly installments. The parties were best of friends so neither of them saw the need to put the sale in writing right away. When Dina was down to her last 5 installment payments, Cat and Dina got into a big fight and Cat decided she did not want to sell the house to Dina anymore. Knowing that the contract was not in writing, Cat avers that the contract was unenforceable for failing to comply with the Statute of Frauds. Is Cat correct?

Question 5. Bong owns a trucking business. He hired Robin as one of his drivers. Robin, a grade school graduate, could not understand English. Be that as it may, Bong made Robin sign a contract that is written in English. In that contract, Robin acknowledges that: he is amenable to being paid below minimum wage; that he will not be a regular employee of Bong's trucking business; and that he is not entitled to benefits. Before a notary public, the terms and conditions of the contract were explained to Robin in Filipino, a language Robin knows. Robin's wife was present and signed an affidavit where she attested to the fact that the contract was explained to Robin in a language he is familiar with. Later, Robin realizes that the terms of the agreement are contrary to labor laws, he then demands from Bong the payment of benefits, claiming that he was defrauded into entering the contract because he did not understand English. Bong refuses, arguing that Robin should first prove fraud because fraud is never presumed. Is Bong's argument correct?