Consing v. Court of Appeals

Summary

Spouses Consing purchased fertilizers on credit from SPCMA in 1975 based on PNB certification and promissory note. When PNB refused payment stating no fertilizer line existed, SPCMA sued for collection. The Supreme Court affirmed the Consings' liability, rejecting their claim that PNB should be liable as guarantor since guaranty must be express under Civil Code Article 2055. The Court modified the award by removing duplicate attorney's fees (the adjudged amount already included contractual 25% attorney's fees) and clarified interest computation at the stipulated 1% monthly rate. The case demonstrates contract law principles, guaranty requirements, and proper interest calculations in commercial transactions.