Jarvis v Roberts et Al

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 April 1991
• Neutral Citation: MS 1991 HC 1
• Docket Number: 15 of 1990
• Date: 18 April 1991

High Court

Redhead, J.

15 of 1990

Jarvis

and

Roberts et al

Appearances:

Mr. John Kelsick for the Plaintiff.

Mr. K. Allen for No. 1 Defendant.

Mr. D. Brandt for No. 2 Defendant.

Damages — Damage to property — Quantum — Damage to car by Hurricane Hugo, in 1989 — Car sold to 2nd named defendant for $39,000 — Contract to respray the car — Oral contract — Plaintiff entitled to recover from 1st defendant with whom he agreed to respray the car — Judgment for plaintiff.

IN COURT

Redhead, J.

1 This is a claim by the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $1,900 for work done by the plaintiff on a motor car belonging to the first named defendant.

2 The facts in this matter, to my mind, are mercifully simple. The first named defendant is a taxi driver. The second named defendant is a motor car dealer.

3 In or about February 1990 the second named defendant sold to the first named defendant a Hyundai Motor Car. This car was damaged by the passage of Hurricane Hugo which devastated the island of Montserrat in 1989.

4 The windscreen of the motor car was broken. In addition, there were scratches on the vehicle. I accept the plaintiff's evidence when he said that there were scratches all over but it was not necessary to respray the whole vehicle.

5 However, be that it may, the second named defendant replaced the damaged windscreen at a cost to himself. The car was valued at $42,000 but it was sold to the first named defendant at a reduced price of $39,000.

6 After the motor car was delivered to the first named defendant he complained of a “squeak” in the car. The second named defendant paid to weld the motor car again at a cost to himself. It is my view, pertinent to mention that these repairs were carried out by the plaintiff on the instructions of the second named defendant. The plaintiff said in his evidence and again I accept his evidence:-

“I entered into an oral agreement with Roberts [the first named defendant] to repair the motor car during the month of February 1990. He came to me, he brought the car to my garage. He told me Mr. Arthurton says I must spray the whole car over. I did not ask him how I am going to get paid.”

7 There is no evidence whatsoever that the second named defendant had any agreement with the plaintiff for respraying over the whole of motor car or for respraying any of the motor car for that matter.

8 In fact, the plaintiff himself denied in cross-examination any such suggestion.

9 In cross-examination to Mr. Allen he said:-

“Roberts did not take me to Arthurton before I did the job. I drove the car from Mr. Arthurton's compound myself…Mr. Arthurton did not tell me to paint the whole car over.”

10 In cross-examination to Mr. Brandt the plaintiff said:-

“Arthurton did not at any time tell me to paint the car.”

11 This is a case which is founded in contract. Having regard to the foregoing, how can the second named defendant be liable on this contract? The answer must be in the negative. The second named defendant said in evidence:-

12 There were scratches on the car. Further, Roberts was given a discount of $3,000. I never told Roberts I would pay for scratches. He tried to bargain further. I gave him a pint of paint. The understanding was that if he wanted to improve on the car it was at his costs.”

13 I accept this evidence.

14 There is one...