Hennes v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
Decision Date | 08 November 1968 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 746-67. |
Citation | 291 F. Supp. 670 |
Parties | The Conjugal Community Constituted between Mrs. Virginia L. HENNES and Mr. Horst Heinig, Represented by the latter as its Administrator; and the Conjugal Community Constituted between Mrs. Carmen Juana López and Mr. Wilfredo Bassó Bertrán, Represented by the Latter as its Administrator, Plaintiffs, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
M. Bauza Rolon and Guillermo Bauza, San Juan, P. R., for plaintiffs.
A. Ruiz-Suria, McConnell, Valdes, Kelley & Sifre, San Juan, P. R., for defendant.
FERNANDEZ - BADILLO, District Judge.
On February 1, 1968 the defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" requesting that plaintiffs' action be dismissed on the grounds set forth in said motion, which was supported by the following documents submitted with it:
Copies of defendant's motion and Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F supporting it were duly notified to plaintiffs' counsel.
The plaintiffs then filed a "Motion Opposing Summary Judgment" requesting that defendant's motion be dismissed on the grounds set forth in their opposition.
The plaintiffs submitted the following documents to support their "Motion Opposing Summary Judgment":
A hearing was set for February 16, 1968. Defendant's counsel Mr. Abelardo Ruiz-Suria was the only one to appear and, at his request, the Court ordered that the matter be argued and submitted by memoranda, which the parties have submitted.
A careful examination of defendant's "Motion for Summary Judgment", of Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F filed in its support of plaintiffs' "Motion Opposing Summary Judgment" and of plaintiffs' sworn statements supporting it, reveals that there is no genuine controversy between the parties as to the following facts in this case:
1. Plaintiffs' claims are solely based on their respective Agent's Agreements with the defendant, photocopies of which were attached to defendant's "Motion for Summary Judgment" (Exhibits A and B);
2. Plaintiffs claim the payment of commissions and alleged damages arising out of the termination of their respective Agent's Agreements;
3. The plaintiffs and the defendant agreed that their respective Agent's Agreements could be terminated "* * by either party * * * without cause by giving the other party three days' notice in writing". (Section 28, Exhibits A and B;
4. Both agreements were terminated in accordance with the above quoted covenant, either by plaintiffs or by the defendant, on the following dates:
5. Under the agreements, there is no obligation to pay the plaintiffs commissions after the termination date of their respective Agent's Agreement, except as provided for in Section 7 which reads as follows:
6. Plaintiffs are indeed both living and they have admitted that they do not comply with the production credit requirement contained in Section 7 of their respective agreements with the defendant. (Paragraph "2" of Defendant's "Motion for Summary Judgment", admitted in paragraph "2" of plaintiffs' "Motion Opposing Summary Judgment").
7. While the plaintiffs have raised the question that section 7 of their respective Agent's Agreement is null and void, they have made no statement of fact to support it.
This question is thus before the Court as a question of law to be decided on the basis of the Agent's Agreements themselves, which were submitted by the defendant in support of its "Motion for Summary Judgment" (Exhibits "A" and "B"). The execution of these Agent's Agreements was admitted by the plaintiffs. The question raised by plaintiffs that section 7 of their respective Agent's Agreements is null and void lacks merits.
Obligations arising from contracts have legal force between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roosevelt Cayman Asset Co. II v. Mercado
...See Cerveceria Corona v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. , No. R-83-418, 1984 WL 270942 (P.R. Apr. 26, 1984) ; Hennes v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada , 291 F.Supp. 670, 673 (D.P.R. 1968). A mortgage "directly and immediately binds an estate and the rights on which it is imposed, whoever its owner......
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Emerito Estrada-Rivera--Isuzu De Puerto Rico, Inc.
...Article 1207 of Puerto Rico's Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. § 3372, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 3372 (1991); Hennes v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 291 F. Supp. 670, 673 (D.P.R. 1968). Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that time they are binding, not only with regard to the ful......
-
Myers v. Silva
...which they may deem advisable, provided they are not in contravention of law, morals, or public order." Hennes v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 291 F.Supp. 670, 673 (D.P.R.1968). See also 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 3372. "Obligations arising from contracts have legal force between the contracting......
-
In re Chase Monarch Int'l Inc.
...is legal, valid and without defect. Cerveceria Corona v. Commonwealth Insurance Co.,115 D.P.R. 345 (1986) ; Hennes v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 291 F.Supp. 670 (D.P.R. 1968) ; Matricardi v. Peñagarícano, Admin., 94 D.P.R. 1 (1967) ; Clausells v. Salas, 51 P.R.R. 87 (1937).Article 12......