Question

Koko Marius was under contract for one year to work exclusively as an agent for the JiMing Company. However, even before the start of his new job at the Ji Ming Company,he was offered a more attractive pay plus fringes benefits by Xiao Long Inc. Koko Marius accepted the offer and transferred to Xiao Long Inc. Consequently, the Ji Ming Company sues Koko Marius and Xiao Ling Incorporated for breach of contract. Defendants claim that the restriction to pay for the Ji Ming Company along is void,hence, unenforceable, as it constitutes an undue interference with the right of Koko Marius to enter into contracts and the impairment of his freedom to be paid and be able to
have his professional growth.

a. Was the claim of Koko Marius and Xiao Long Company, correct? Why?

b. Suppose there was a memorandum issued that can impair the contract of Koko Marius and the Ji Ming Company, can Koko Marius challenge the contract?

Answer 1

Answer:

sorry but I need point but u will get the answer very soon

Answer 2

The Answer is:

Koko Marius was bound by a one-year contract to serve either as a representative for the Ji Ming Company.

The answers to the given questions are:

(A)

• It's not true, though.
• The contract that Koko Marius entered into one to Ji Ming Company obligates him in accordance with the laws of contractual obligatoriness.
• Legal power exists for contractual responsibilities among parties. According to Section 1170 of a Civil Code, he is liable for damages since he violated the timeliness of his duties.
• Since it is not a signature, Xiao Long Company is not part of the contract, yet it is nonetheless liable under Article 1314.
• The foundation for its obligation, assuming Xiao Long Company is cognizant of both the contract, is not legal but instead quasi-delictual.
• Any service provider that induces another one to violate a contract is responsible to the opposing statutory provision again for violation, thus according Article 1314 of Civil Code.

(B)

• MOUs really aren't legally binding, but they do reflect a sincerity and esteem between the parties that goes beyond a pleasant agreement.
• MOUs are typically the initial steps forward towards a contract that is enforceable in court.
• Ji Ming Company is assumed to be aware of the agreement.
• Both Koko nor Xiao Long Group could have been responsible since the contract's limits are against the law, morals, goods to the consumer, public security, or policy, which is prohibited by Article 1306.

SPJ2