This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-03-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Contracts of adhesion wherein one party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the other are not entirely prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.[34] A contract of adhesion is just as binding as ordinary contracts. It is true that this Court had, on occasion, struck down such contracts as being assailable when the weaker party is left with no choice by the dominant bargaining party and is thus completely deprived of the opportunity to bargain effectively. Nevertheless, contracts of adhesion are not prohibited even as the courts remain careful in scrutinizing the factual circumstances underlying each case to determine the respective claims of contending parties on their efficacy.[35] | |||||
|
2004-11-10 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| NIA is, therefore, estopped from invoking the contractual stipulation providing for the fixed rate to justify a lower computation than that claimed by Hydro. It cannot be allowed to hide behind the very provision which it itself continuously violated.[45] An admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.[46] A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them.[47] | |||||