3. Maymay is the owner of the SODA canteen, an enterprise engaged in the selling of Coksi soft drinks in School X. Maymay entered into a contract with Coksi Corporation - the corporation engaged in the manufacturing and sale of Coksi soft drinks. Coksi Corporation delivered Coksi soft drinks to Maymay on May 9, 2019. However, some parents of the students complained to Maymay that the Coksi soft drinks sold by her contained fiber-like matter and other foreign substances or particles. Hence, Maymay brought the said bottles to the Regional Health Office (RHO) for examination. Later, RHO informed Maymay that the samples she submitted "are adulterated. Consequently, her sales of soft drinks severely plummeted from the usual 10 cases per day to as low as 2 to 3 cases per day resulting in losses from P200.00 to P300.00 per day, and not long after that, she had to close her school canteen. On January 9, 2020, Maymay filed a complaint and demanded from Coksi Corporation the payment of damages. However, Coksi Corporation arguedthat since the complaint is based on a contract, and not on quasi-delict, as there exists a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, the complaint should have been filed within six months from the delivery of the thing sold. Coksi Corporation Hence, Maymay's complaint should be dismissed. If you were the Judge, would you dismiss the complaint of Maymay? (20 pts)

4.On October 16, 2001, Tolitzz entered into a Trucking Service Agreement with Yamazhita. Under the Trucking Service Agreement, Tolitzz would provide services for Yamazhita's trucking requirements. These services were subcontracted by Tolitzz to Bebe Trucking Co. , through their own Trucking Service Agreement executed on the same day.

In April 2002, Yamazhita called Tolitzz's Sales Manager, Salud Rizada, about a column in the April 19, 2002 issue of the tabloid newspaper Tempo. This news narrated the April 17, 2002 interception by Caloocan City police of a stolen truck filled with shipment of video monitors and CCTV systems owned by Yamazhita.

When contacted by Tolitzz about this news, Bebe Trucking Co. stated that the tabloid report had blown the incident out of proportion. Tolitzz directed Bebe Trucking Co. to investigate the matter. During its April 20, 2002 meeting with Tolitzz and Yamazhita, as well as in its April 22, 2002 letter addressed to Yamazhita, Bebe Trucking Co. reiterated that the truck merely broke down and had to be towed.

However, when the shipment arrived in Yokohama, Japan on May 8, 2002, it was discovered that 10 pallets of the shipment's 218 cartons, worth US$34,226.14, were missing.

In its June 6, 2002 letter, Yamazhita terminated its In-House Brokerage Service Agreement with Tolitzz, effective July 1, 2002. Yamazhita cited loss of confidence for terminating the contract, stating that Tolitzz's way of handling the April 17, 2002 incident and its nondisclosure of this incident's relevant facts "amounted to fraud and signified an utter disregard of the rule of law."

Tolitzz sent a letter dated September 16, 2002 to Bebe Trucking Co., demanding P2,500,000.00 as indemnity for lost income. It argued that Bebe Trucking Co. 's mishandling of the situation caused the termination of Tolitzz's contract with Yamazhita.

However, Bebe Trucking Co. refused to pay. It contended that it has no obligationto disclose the facts regarding the hijacking incident since this was not among the provisions of its Trucking Service Agreement with Tolitzz. There being no contractual obligation, Tolitzz had no cause of action against Bebe Trucking Co. Thus, Tolitzz filed a complaint for damages against Bebe Trucking Co. Is Bebe Trucking liable to Tolitzz? (20 pts)

5.Thorpe contracted Dr. Stranger to construct a windmill system for him, for a total consideration of 60,000.00. Pursuant to the agreement Thorpe paid the downpayment of 30,000.00 and installment of 15,000.00 leaving a 15,000.00 balance. Thorpe refused to pay the balance because he had already paid this amount to SPGMI which constructed a deep well to which the windmill system was to be connected, and assuming that he owed the 15,000.00 this should be offset by the defects in the windmill system which caused the structure to collapse after strong winds hit their place. According to Dr. Stranger, the 60,000.00 consideration is only for the construction of the windmill and the construction of the deep well was not part of it. The collapse of the windmill cannot be attributed to him as well, since he delivered it in good and working condition and Thorpe accepted it without protest. Thorpe contested that the collapse is attributable to strong winds, a force majeure that relieved him of liability. Is Thorpe correct? (20 pts)