This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties, and the stipulations therein provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy shall be binding as between the parties. In contractual relations, the law allows the parties much leeway and considers their agreement to be the law between them. This is because 'courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains x x x relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts.' The courts are obliged to give effect to the agreement and enforce the contract to the letter.[53] | |||||
|
2011-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing letter, it is evident that LVM unilaterally broached its intention of deducting the subject E-VAT payments only on 15 May 2001 or long after the project's completion on 9 July 1999.[29] In the absence of any stipulation thereon, however, the CA correctly disallowed the offsetting of said sums from the retention money undoubtedly due the Joint Venture. Courts are obliged to give effect to the parties' agreement and enforce the contract to the letter.[30] The rule is settled that they have no authority to alter a contract by construction or to make a new contract for the parties; their duty is confined to the interpretation of the one which the parties have made for themselves, without regard to its wisdom or folly. Courts cannot supply material stipulations, read into the contract words it does not contain[31] or, for that matter, read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.[32] This is particularly true in this case where, in addition to the dearth of a meeting of minds between the parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts fail to yield any intention to offset the said E-VAT payments from the retention money still in LVM's possession. | |||||