Eid v Mason

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 November 1991
• Neutral Citation: MS 1991 HC 4
• Docket Number: 17 of 1990
• Date: 28 November 1991

Eid

and

Mason

Redhead, J.

17 of 1990

High Court

Contract — Sale of car — Breach of contract — Defendant and plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell a car to defendant for $25,000 — Defendant took car and used it for nine days then refused to pay the agreed price — Defendants sued — Contract legally binding — Claim for $5,000 for depreciation of property vehicle exposed to elements for nine months — Car eventually sold for $15,000 — $5,000 awarded to plaintiff as difference in market value and sale price.

Appearances:

Mr. K. Allen for the Plaintiff.

Mr. J. Kelsick for the Defendant.

IN COURT

Redhead, J.

1 The plaintiff is a businessman. He imports vehicles from Puerto Rico for sale in Montserrat. He imported a Ford Bronco jeep from Puerto Rico prior to the passage of Hurricane Hugo in September 1989.

2 The plaintiff had the vehicle displayed in a parking lot near to his home. He had a price tag of $43,000 on the vehicle. With the passage of the hurricane, the vehicle suffered some damage.

3 According to the plaintiff's testimony, the defendant visited his premises on Saturday 4th November between 3:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., the defendant having spoken to him the previous day expressing interest in the vehicle. The plaintiff said he told the defendant he will take $30,000 for the vehicle because according to the plaintiff the glass at the back of the vehicle was broken and because of the condition of the vehicle. The plaintiff said that the defendant hesitated, for a while then made an offer of $25,000 which he, the plaintiff, accepted.

4 The plaintiff testified that he gave the defendant the keys to the vehicle. He told the defendant the only thing that was wrong with the car, is that the battery may not start the car since it was not used for a while. The defendant said that was no problem. He took the key and according to the plaintiff the defendant told him that he will try the car out and if everything is well he will pay him on Monday.

5 The plaintiff in his evidence said that the defendant drove off with the vehicle. He subsequently saw the defendant using the vehicle. He saw the defendant parking the vehicle near to Mercer's Supermarket where he, the defendant, works. The defendant works about five hundred (500) yards from plaintiff's business premises. The plaintiff said that he saw the defendant on the Tuesday after he had delivered the key to him. The defendant told him that everything was okay and he will pay him on the Monday.

6 The plaintiff said the defendant did not come to see him. The defendant did not telephone him. About one week after the time for payment, the plaintiff said that he walked over to where the defendant works. He asked the defendant if he can kindly collect the money for the car now. The defendant, according to the plaintiff immediately said to him he did not think he was going to buy the car anymore. The plaintiff said he told the defendant “You will have to speak to my lawyer.”

7 The vehicle was then parked opposite to where the defendant works, in the Post Office parking lot. The defendant kept the keys to the vehicle, according to the plaintiff, for about ten days, after which the defendant sent the key by a messenger in an envelope with an accompanying letter.

8 The defendant was previously employed as a technician at Air Studios, Montserrat. He left the job after the passage of Hurricane Hugo in or about October 1989. He then obtained a job at Mercer's Supermarket as Manager of the Wholesale Department.

9 The defendant on the other hand testified that he visited the plaintiff's premises, not on 4th November as the plaintiff said, but “I believe the date was inaccurate. It would have been about seven days after the given date.”

10 The defendant said that he viewed the vehicle after he had spoken to the plaintiff regarding the plaintiff's intentions to sell the vehicle. He said that he visited the plaintiff's premises at about 3:00 p.m. on the day in question. The defendant said that the plaintiff indicated that the vehicle was not capable of being started at the time because the battery was flat. The defendant also said that he pointed out to the plaintiff that the two right tyres were flat.

11 The defendant testified that he indicated to the plaintiff that he would be able to get the vehicle started. He said that he had another vehicle. He “jumped started” the Ford Bronco vehicle. The plaintiff was then present. The defendant said he got the engine to fire but could not keep the engine running unless he kept his foot on the accelerator.

Continuing his testimony, the defendant said:-

“I said to him that before I would be able to make him an offer on the vehicle I would have to see it running properly. I have considerable experience about car engines. I know why it would not run. A car which sits down for a long time, the gas evaporates inside of the carburetor and fouls up the jets.

I indicated to the plaintiff that I would attempt to put the car in working order. Then at that point we would discuss, we would talk about money. He did not have a price at the time. I did not offer him $25,000 for the car.”

12 The defendant said that he took the vehicle to his workshop and as time allowed, he worked on it. He purchased two new tubes for the tyres because the tyres were “seriously flat”. According to the defendants he stripped the carburetor more than once. Changed the fuel filter. Put plastic over the broken windows. He inspected the suspension drive chain. He was not really able to get the vehicle working properly. The carburetor kept fouling up. The engine would not run properly. According to the defendant he put this down to the rusting of the gasket. The gear box was slipping. The engine was losing coolant while it was being driven. The defendant said that the loss of the coolant was so sudden that he did not want to drive the vehicle. The vehicle had water pump problems.

13 Norman Burns, a motor mechanic who bought the plaintiff's vehicle in August, 1990 gave evidence on behalf of the defendant. He said:

“The engine was losing water from the water pump. The automatic transmission was slipping. I took the vehicle to my workshop. I cleaned out the radiator core. It was blocked up. The alternator was not charging.”

14 In a way, his evidence supports some of what the defendant said in relation to the condition of the vehicle. But. I must bear in mind that this was nine months after the defendant had had the vehicle. In addition, the vehicle was left in an unprotected area exposed to the elements for that length of time. It is reasonable for me to conclude that these defects may not necessarily have been present when the defendant had the vehicle but he may have learned of them from Burns.

15 According to the defendant, because of the problems he decided that he did not want to buy the vehicle. The defendant said that he next say the plaintiff about nine days after their initial meeting. The plaintiff came to his place of work according to the defendant, about 21st November, 1989. The defendant said:

“He asked me about buying the vehicle… He said what about the vehicle. I outlined the problems to him. He said he was going to sue me. He said nothing was wrong with the vehicle. He left.”

16 On 25th November, 1990 the defendant returned the key to the plaintiff. The car was still parked by the Post Office, Plymouth, in the parking lot. The plaintiff issued a Writ against the defendant. on 28th March, 1990 in which he claims damages against the defendant for breach of contract to purchase his Ford Bronco 1942 and for damages for injury to the plaintiff's said Ford Branco while in the control and custody of the defendant.

17 By the Statement of Claim the plaintiff alleges that on or about the 3rd November, 1939 the defendant agreed to purchase the plaintiff's vehicle at a price of $25,000 and that the defendant had promised to pay the said sum within one week.

18 That after the defendant had used the said vehicle for about nine days or thereabouts the plaintiff...