Teisheira v Shinn et Al

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Louisy, J.
• Judgment Date: 31 January 1970
• Neutral Citation: MS 1970 HC 4
• Docket Number: No. 10 of 1969
• Date: 31 January 1970

Teisheira

and

Shinn et al

No. 10 of 1969

High Court

Tort - Damages

Held: There was a misunderstanding as to what was being agreed. Whilst the plaintiff was talking about loss of use for his car, the defendant was talking about settling the matter in respect of damages to the plaintiff's car. The parties were not ad idem, and consequently there was no agreement between them for loss of use, nor for the payment of $710 and the plaintiff keeping the wrecked car. The plaintiff's total entitlement would be $2,340. The defendant should be credited with $420 in reduction of the judgment. Judgment given for the plaintiff in the sum of $1920.

Facts: The plaintiff's car collided with the second defendant's car which was being driven at the time by the first defendant. The defendant admitted liability. The issue before the court was on the question of damages, the issue being what was the basis of the agreement between the two parties as regards compensation of the plaintiff.

Louisy, J.

1 On the 8 ^th January, 1966 the plaintiff's car collided with the other defendants' car driven by the defendant Allen M. Shinn. The defendants admitted liability. The issue before the court is on the question of damages. The plaintiff states that after the accident he went to M.S. Osborne (now deceased) and in the presence of his son Bertran Osborne, it was agreed that M.S. Osborne would pay him $710 for loss of use of his car until he replaced it with one from England. The plaintiff was paid $710. The defendant Bertran Osborne on the other hand stated that the agreement reached was for the payment of $710 and the keeping of the wrecked car by the plaintiff. He produced a receipt signed by the plaintiff indicating that the $710 was in full settlement of the claim for damages to the plaintiff's car. Now the car was insured for $2,800 at the time of the accident. Could it be that the plaintiff would have accepted $710 plus the wrecked car in full settlement for damages, when the evidence is that the car was very badly damaged and that it would be very expensive to repair or that it could not be repaired? This seems incredible. But the evidence of the defendant Bertran Osborne seems to indicate that that was the agreement and this is fortified by the receipt signed by the plaintiff. Yet the basis for arriving at the $710 seems to have been made on the period, which the plaintiff would be without a car. Further, the defendant Bertran...