Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » Lennon Mapson v Berry James

    Lennon Mapson v Berry James

    1
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA
    AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
    GRENADA
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2008/0458
    BETWEEN:
    LENNON MAPSON
    Claimant
    AND
    BERRY JAMES
    Defendant
    Appearances:
    Mr. Ruggles Ferguson with Mrs. Deborah Mitchell for the Claimant

    Mr. Alban John for the Defendant

    2009: September, 22;
    2011: June 1, October 4;

    2013: March 21st.

    JUDGMENT
    [1] PRICE FINDLAY, J.: The Claimant sells cane juice and is a successful business
    man; he is 46 years old and resides at Mt. Parnassus.
    [2] This is a claim brought by the Claimant for breach of contract. The claim is for the
    sum of $94,222.70 plus court fees, costs and interest.
    [3] The Claimant’s case is that on or about 28th April, 2008, the Defendant agreed to
    sell to the Claimant one Toyota Vigo (Hilux) vehicle for the sum of $106,000.00.
    [4] He pleads that a term of the said agreement which was partly oral and partly in
    writing, was for him to pay the Defendant a deposit of $90,000.00.
    2
    [5] The Claimant further pleaded that it was a term of the agreement that the vehicle
    was to be delivered to the Claimant within six (6) weeks of the contract, and at that
    time the Claimant would pay the remaining sum of $16,000.00 to the Defendant.
    [6] On the 28th April, 2008, the Claimant paid the sum of $90,000.00 to the Defendant
    by way of transfer from Claimant’s bank account to Defendant’s bank account.
    This wire transfer document was exhibited by the Claimant.
    [7] The Defendant issued a receipt dated 28th May, 2008 acknowledging the payment.
    [8] The Claimant claims that the Defendant breached the agreement by not delivering
    the vehicle in accordance with the contract.
    [9] He was then forced to purchase a new vehicle from another source for the sum of
    $80,000.00 and as a result he incurred Bank charges of $4,222.70.
    [10] The Defendant who was initially representing himself filed a defence and then an
    amended defence and counterclaim.
    [11] The Defendant in both his defence and amended defence and counterclaim
    averred that the agreement called for the Claimant to pay to the Defendant the full
    purchase price of $106,000.00 prior to shipment. This he pleaded was stipulated
    by the shipper.
    [12] He averred that the $90,000.00 paid by the Claimant was not a deposit pending
    delivery but said was a payment pending the full purchase price before the order
    could be placed.
    [13] The Defendant states the Claimant raised the purchase price by way of a loan,
    and at the time he did so he informed the Defendant that he was to raise the
    remaining balance of $16,000.00 by way of a loan as well.
    [14] The Defendant also states that the Claimant required certain special features, a
    grey interior and alloy wheels. He says it took some four (4) weeks back and forth
    with the Claimant and the suppliers for the matter to be resolved.
    3
    [15] He further states that he waited for the Claimant to provide the remaining
    $16,000.00. In or about 29th July, 2008, he persuaded the suppliers to ship the
    vehicle Free on Board at the price of US$31,528.00 and as a result he sent
    US$16,000.00 followed by US$15,000.00 a week later to the said suppliers.
    [16] After these payments were made in or about the first week in August, the Claimant
    inquired about the vehicle and was informed of the transfer of funds. During this
    conversation the Claimant informed the Defendant that he had test driven a
    vehicle locally at Steele’s Auto Supplies and he was impressed with the vehicle.
    [17] The Defendant states that it was at this time that it became clear to him that the
    Claimant was intending to resile from the agreement.
    [18] The vehicle was eventually shipped on 24th September, 2008 consigned to the
    Claimant and it arrived in Grenada on 27th November, 2008 some seven (7)
    months after the agreement was entered into and the initial payment of
    $90,000.00.
    [19] The Defendant denies any breach of the agreement and specifically denies that
    there was any time of the agreement that the vehicle was to be delivered within six
    (6) weeks of the agreement.
    [20] He alleges that it is the Claimant who breached the agreement by refusing to
    complete the agreement and take possession of the vehicle. He claims damages
    for breach of contract.
    [21] The Claimant approached the defendant and was shown several photos of
    vehicles. He selected one which met his requirements; it was silver and he said
    that it matched his cane juice machine.
    [22] He told the Defendant that he was not really interested in the fancy features but if
    they came with the vehicle, he would take them. He asked for two specific
    features which I mentioned earlier in this judgment.
    4
    [23] In his testimony he stated that the defendant told him he would get the vehicle in
    six weeks time after he paid the deposit of $90,000.00.
    [24] The Defendant delivered the invoice to him in June 2008. He testified that the date
    on the receipt 28th May, 2009 was an error, it should have been 28th April, 2008;
    that being the day he transferred the funds. He applied for the loan for the
    remaining $16,000.00 the first week in June 2008 about one (1) week before he
    expected to receive the vehicle.
    [25] He spoke to the Defendant as the bank needed proof that he had paid the
    $90,000.00 and he requested a copy of the receipt. He said the Defendant spoke
    to the loans officer at the Bank.
    [26] He tried to contact the Defendant the week of 9th June, 2008 as he expected to get
    the vehicle that week, he was not successful. He finally contacted the Defendant
    during the following week; and the Defendant informed him that the vehicle was in
    Miami and that it would be in Grenada in two (2) weeks.
    [27] Two weeks came and went; nothing happened. He tried and failed to contact the
    Defendant. Several weeks passed, nothing.
    [28] He visited the Defendant’s home in mid July, 2008, spoke to his wife who informed
    him that the vehicle was paid for. He then went to Defendant’s brother’s home,
    spoke to the Defendant who informed that the vehicle would be in Grenada
    anytime now. He said it was at this time that he told the Defendant if the vehicle
    was not in Grenada before Carnival (9th August, 2008) the agreement was at an
    end and he expected to be refunded his money ($90,000.00).
    [29] The Claimant had by then test driven a similar vehicle locally.
    [30] Carnival came and went; there was no vehicle. The Claimant could not contact
    the Defendant, despite leaving messages. On Wednesday 3rd August, 2008 the
    Claimant went to the Defendant’s home and told him the deal was off. He testifies
    5
    the Defendant told him if that is how he felt he would return his money. The
    Defendant, of course, denies this conversation.
    [31] The parties met the next day and the Claimant states that the Defendant admitted
    that the vehicle had not left Thailand. The Claimant then informed the defendant
    he could no longer wait and that he should return the Claimant’s money.
    [32] The following week the Defendant told the Claimant he could not pay him all the
    money at once as he had already ordered the vehicle.
    [33] The Claimant suggested that they attend a lawyer to draft an agreement for
    repayment. He says the defendant agreed but at the appointed time he could not
    contact the Defendant.
    [34] He heard no further from the Defendant. He proceeded to purchase a vehicle
    locally and gave instructions to his Attorney to file suit.
    [35] In cross-examination, he repeated that the Defendant told him he could get a
    Toyota out of Thailand in six (6) weeks time.
    [36] He agreed he requested a gray interior and a throw bar order to tow the cane juice
    machine, a Dura liner and a cover for the tray. He denied asking for special
    wheels or a stereo system or an mp3 player. He said he told the Defendant those
    things did not matter to him. He needed the vehicle to go in the bush to collect
    cane.
    [37] He denied that the defendant told him that Thailand needed the full $106,000.00
    before shipping the vehicle to Grenada. He reiterated that he went to the Bank to
    get the balance of the funds because he expected the vehicle to be delivered to
    him within a week, not because the Defendant requested money to pay for the
    vehicle.
    [38] He said that the Defendant never told him that he could not say when the vehicle
    would arrive in Grenada until he knew the date of shipping from Thailand.
    6
    [39] He told the Defendant that he had lost interest in the vehicle because time had
    passed and it made things difficult for his business.
    [40] He did not know how the Defendant planned to return the $90,000.00 to him if he
    had already sent the monies to Thailand.
    [41] He said he did not call off the agreement because he got a better deal locally.
    [42] The Defendant stated that he sources and imports vehicles into Grenada for sale
    to the general public.
    [43] In his original defence he admits that he had never ordered a new vehicle prior to
    this transaction nor had he done business with Thailand before. He further stated
    that he normally does business with Japan, and the vehicles ordered from Japan
    take an average six (6) weeks after departure to arrive in Grenada.
    [44] I say that this is interesting because the Claimant says that the Defendant
    promised that the vehicle would be delivered within six (6) weeks of being ordered.
    [45] He states that the agreement with the Claimant was for payment in full prior to
    shipment. He states that this was stipulated by the suppliers; this was a condition
    precedent to the suppliers shipping the vehicle. The $90,000.00 paid by the
    Claimant was not a deposit pending delivery but pending payment of the balance
    of the purchase price before the Defendant could place the order for shipment.
    [46] He testified that the original price was EC$91,000.00 but due to the special
    features requested by the Claimant the eventual cost was $106,000.00.
    [47] He said that he told the Claimant that he needed the full purchase price as it was a
    stipulation of the shippers. The Claimant however only raised $90,000.00 and told
    him that he would secure a further loan for the balance of $16,000.00.
    [48] He said he sourced a vehicle and ordered the specifications, alloy wheels and
    grey interior that the Claimant, requested. This process took approximately four
    (4) weeks. The Claimant says he eventually agreed on design he found in a
    7
    photograph. In May 2008 the Claimant requested an invoice for the balance of
    $16,000.00 and a receipt showing that he had paid the sum of $90,000.00.
    [49] Sometime in June 2008, some 2½-3 months after the agreement, the Claimant
    confirmed to him that he had sourced a loan for the balance of $16,000.00 and
    indicated that he did not want to pay interest on the loan before he had the vehicle
    in his possession.
    [50] The Defendant then negotiated with the suppliers and they finally agreed to ship
    the vehicle F.O.B. (Free on Board). These negotiations he said took weeks but he
    does not say how long. Once the negotiations were complete, he paid
    EC$85,838.42 to the suppliers. The sum was paid in two instalments one in July
    the other in August 2008, some 4 – 5 months after the agreement was made.
    [51] He stated that the Claimant in the first half of August 2008 told him that he had test
    driven similar vehicle locally. The Claimant told him he could get the vehicle locally
    for EC$90,000.00.
    [52] Sometime after the middle of August 2008, the Claimant left a message on the
    Defendant’s phone stating that he no longer wanted the vehicle the Defendant had
    ordered and demanding that the money be returned.
    [53] The Defendant testified that the Claimant came to his home that night and
    demanded his money be returned the following day. The Defendant went to the
    Claimant to show him proof of the order but the Claimant was not interested in
    seeing anything, his mind was already made up.
    [54] He denied any breach of the agreement, and stated it was the Claimant who had
    reneged on the agreement, and he wanted judgment on his counterclaim.
    [55] In cross-examination he denied that he had a discussion with the Claimant about
    any vehicle other than the Vigo. He denied that he had discussed a Ford vehicle
    with the Claimant. The Claimant always stated that he wanted a new Toyota with
    special features from Japan.
    8
    [56] This was his first opportunity to import a brand new vehicle into Grenada, the other
    vehicles he brought in were all second hand/used vehicles.
    [57] He described the process that was involved in ordering a vehicle from abroad. He
    indicated he would get pictures from the internet, and the C.I.F (customer
    insurance and freight) price. He would then prepare an invoice for the client,
    which would have all the details and state the amount of the deposit required.
    [58] He explained that the cost is the cost of the vehicle at source. The insurance is to
    secure the replacement of the cargo if lost at sea. The freight represents shipping
    costs source to destination.
    [59] F.O.B (Free on Board) represents that the cargo had been shipped without the
    freight being pre paid. F.O.B from his understanding covers insurance, and by
    destination he meant final destination.
    [60] He explained that there would be additional charges such as Government duties,
    port charges and licencing fees.
    [61] He indicated that for the price he quoted for the Claimant, he would take care of
    the licencing of the vehicle and the port charges. There were no Government fees
    as the Claimant had concessions.
    [62] He recalled that he had placed the order sometime in June 2008 but could not
    recall the exact date. He said he had to establish with the suppliers the terms of
    payment, then obtain the money in order to start the transaction in earnest.
    [63] At the time that he paid the supplier he admitted that he was holding the sum of
    $90,000.00 he received from the Claimant for about three (3) months.
    [64] He said there were issues with the special alloy wheels and the colour of the
    interior of the vehicle. He also stated that because it was the first time he was
    dealing with this supplier, they wanted all the money up front prior to shipping.
    9
    [65] The issues with the special features took place between the payment of the
    deposit in April and July 2008. The freight was also an issue and was not resolved
    when he sent the first instalment to the suppliers.
    [66] He testified that the supplier had clearly indicated to him that the vehicle had to be
    paid for in full prior to shipping.
    [67] There was the issue of the colour of the interior outstanding as the suppliers were
    providing the vehicle with a beige interior and the Claimant wanted a grey interior.
    All of this took place between the payment of the $90,000.00 and sometime in
    July. (They were being worked out)
    [68] In fact he testified that the freight issue was still outstanding when he sent the first
    payment.
    [69] He sent the second instalment in August 2008, but denies that the Claimant was
    anxious to have the vehicle delivered. He denied that the Claimant was behind
    him to have the vehicle delivered since May 2008.
    [70] He denied he promised delivery within six (6) weeks of the payment of the
    $90,000.00. The agreement he said had no time for delivery to the Claimant. He
    said he would work diligently to get the vehicle to the Claimant as soon as
    possible.
    [71] He denied that between April and June he had the impression that the Claimant
    wanted the vehicle but by early August he sensed that the Claimant wanted the
    vehicle urgently, he denies that the Claimant ever gave him a final deadline of
    Carnival 2008 to deliver the vehicle. He denied that the Claimant told him the
    agreement would be at an end if the vehicle was not in Grenada by 9th August,
    2008.
    [72] After Carnival in 2008, the Claimant demanded his money back, but he denied
    telling the Claimant that the vehicle was in Miami. He told the Claimant the vehicle
    had been ordered but the Claimant did not believe him.
    10
    [73] It was not true or correct that the Claimant was to pay the balance of $16,000.00
    upon delivery of the vehicle.
    [74] Just after Carnival 2008 the Claimant came to his home and informed him that the
    deal was off, but he could not recall that he promised to return to the Claimant the
    $90,000.00 he had paid. He did not recall telling the Claimant that they should go
    to a lawyer to get an agreement to repay the money. He and the Claimant spoke
    1-2 times after this, and he described the Claimant as being very aggressive and
    angry.
    [75] The Claimant was angry because the vehicle had not been delivered but he
    insisted that he had ordered it. It was not until he sent the $85,000.00 to the
    suppliers did he tell the Claimant that he had ordered the vehicle.
    [76] He explained that the suppliers provide the vehicle on order. That means they
    start the process of production when payment has been made. You must place
    the order to start the production process.
    [77] He said that he had to make the first payment to start the process. He sent
    US$16,000.00 by wire transfer on 29th July, 2008 and on the 6th August, 2008 he
    wired a further sum of US$15,528.00 to suppliers.
    [78] The second set of monies were sent after the vehicle was completed. He accepted
    that the vehicle was completed by the 8th August, 2008.
    [79] He also agreed that his “mark up” was included in the balance of $16,000.00,
    which was not paid by the Claimant and that the Claimant would have had to pay
    for all his services in full prior to the delivery of the vehicle. He only became aware
    that the Claimant was of the view that the balance of $16,000.00 was due on
    delivery sometime at the end of August 2008.
    [80] He admitted that the shipping date on the document issued out of Thailand was
    24th September, 2008, and admitted that as of that date the vehicle the Claimant
    11
    ordered was still in Thailand and this was so after the Claimant informed him that
    he no longer wanted the vehicle.
    [81] The vehicle was scheduled to arrive in Grenada around 16th November, 2008,
    about six (6) months after the 24 September, 2008 date. He had also by 24th
    September, 2008 received a letter from the Claimant’s attorney demanding
    repayment of the monies paid by the Claimant.
    [82] The vehicle eventually arrived in Grenada on or about 10th November, 2008 but he
    did not deliver the vehicle to the Claimant nor did he return the $90,000.00 to him.
    Analysis
    [83] I have no doubt that there was an agreement between the Claimant and the
    Defendant by which the defendant was to order and deliver a Toyota Vigo (new) to
    the Claimant. The Defendant was to order the vehicle from Thailand and the cost
    of the vehicle, including all features and incidentals was to be EC$106,000.00.
    This was known to the Defendant by 28th April, 2008.
    [84] Firstly, when a vehicle is to be ordered, before a final price can be given, it is only
    common sense that the party ordering the vehicle would know the price of the
    vehicle, including all the features (both standard and special) which come with the
    vehicle. It would make no sense otherwise.
    [85] Therefore, at the time the Defendant gave the Claimant in this action the total price
    for the vehicle ($106,000.00) it stands to reason that this figure took into account
    any special features the Claimant wished to have on the vehicle.
    [86] I pause here to say that the exhibit which shows the features which the Toyota
    Vigo ordered by the Defendant seem to include no special features whatever, and
    this was confirmed by the Defendant in his evidence.
    [87] Secondly, I find that the agreement was that the sum of $90,000.00 was to be paid
    as a deposit, with the balance of $16,000.00 to be paid on delivery of the vehicle,
    12
    especially in light of the admission by the Defendant that out of the remaining
    balance of $16,000.00 was his mark up and other incidentals.
    [88] I do not accept that all the monies were to be paid up front as postulated by the
    Defendant, and this was certainly not made clear to the Claimant if it was in fact
    the case.
    [89] Neither the document dated 6th March, 2008 nor the document dated 28th May,
    2008 state that the monies were due all at once. Such a term ought to have been
    in the written documents so as to alert the Claimant that this was a term of the
    agreement. Interestingly, the Defendant upon receipt of the EC$90,000.00 did not
    say to the Claimant that he would not be in a position to order the vehicle until he
    had the full purchase price in his possession. He merely states that the Claimant
    undertook to pay the balance once the loan he had applied for was approved.
    [90] I believe the Claimant when he states in his evidence that the Defendant informed
    him that the vehicle would be delivered to him in Grenada within six (6) weeks of
    the payment of the deposit. I am fortified in my finding because in crossexamination
    the Defendant stated that the vehicle would take approximately six (6)
    weeks to get from Thailand to Grenada once it had been shipped.
    [91] The Defendant was a businessman seasoned in sourcing and selling vehicles.
    While his experience was with mostly used vehicles, he held himself out as being
    capable of conducting the agreed transaction in a satisfactory manner.
    [92] The Defendant knew that the Claimant wished the vehicle for his business and
    was aware that there was a need for some urgency in having the vehicle delivered
    to the Claimant.
    [93] The defendant further agreed that there were two factors that were of importance
    to purchasers of vehicles: (1) price; and (2) time of delivery. It is not so incredible
    to believe that the claimant would have asked when the vehicle would arrive in
    Grenada given the purpose for which he needed it.
    13
    [94] The Defendant cannot rely on his inexperience in sourcing vehicles from Thailand
    as an excuse; he held himself out as being capable of so doing and the Claimant
    relied on those assurances.
    [95] I believe that the Defendant was not truthful when he told the Claimant in July
    2008 that the vehicle would be arriving in Grenada “at any time now”. In fact by
    his own admission, the vehicle did not leave Thailand for shipment to Grenada
    until 24th September, 2008. The Defendant was also not truthful when he told the
    Claimant in June, 2008 that the vehicle was in Miami.
    [96] I believe that the Defendant did speak to the loans officer at the Grenada Cooperative
    Bank and was asked to supply proof of the payment of the
    EC$90,000.00.
    [97] The Defendant agreed that the Claimant contacted him in August 2008 and was
    very angry at not having received the promised vehicle. It is clear that there were
    discussions between the Claimant and the Defendant in June and July of 2008,
    with the Claimant anxiously requesting of the Defendant the delivery of the said
    vehicle.
    [98] It would seem strange that the Claimant could be so angry with the Defendant if
    there was not some deadline attached to the receipt of the vehicle. I find that
    these angry exchanges began in or about June 2008 and continued through
    August 2008, at which time the Claimant gave the defendant a deadline of the
    Sunday before Carnival, the 9th August, 2008.
    [99] I believe the Claimant did try to contact the Defendant after the Carnival
    celebration without success and that he finally spoke to the Defendant on 13th
    August 2008, when the Claimant rescinded the contract. I also believe that on 14th
    August, 2008 the Defendant finally admitted to the Claimant that the vehicle had
    not yet left Thailand. This is borne out by the Bill of Lading dated 24th September,
    2008.
    14
    [100] I do not accept the explanation of the Defendant regarding the delaying the
    delivery of the vehicle. It was he who was dealing with the suppliers, and if there
    was the difficulty he testified to, why did he not convey these concerns to the
    Claimant rather than be untruthful to him.
    [101] The Defendant must have known what features were required by the Claimant by
    April 28th 2008 when he received the sum of $90,000 from the Claimant. Why then
    did he not order the vehicle at that time, or at least inform the Claimant that he
    needed the full purchase price before he could do so. Even as late as June, July
    and August 2008 he never told the Claimant that he required the balance of
    $16,000.00 in order to complete the purchase.
    [102] I find no fault in the Claimant sourcing another vehicle given the delays
    experienced in his arrangement with the Defendant and do not find that he
    sourced the local vehicle for any other reason than the delay in getting the vehicle
    by the Defendant.
    Law
    [103] It is correct that the mere statement of a date for completion does not make the
    date so stated a part of the contract.
    [104] The Court must consider all the attendant circumstances of each case in deciding
    whether the time limited for completion is reasonable.
    [105] If time is not made of the essence of the contract one party cannot of its own
    motion make it so. Halsbury’s Laws1 states: –
    “The modern law in the case of contracts of all types may be summarised
    as follows: –
    1) The parties expressly stipulate that conditions as to time must be
    strictly complied with;
    2) The nature of the subject matter of the contract or the surrounding
    circumstances show that time should be considered of the
    essence; or
    1 Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Ed Vol 9 (1) para. 931
    15
    3) A party who has been subjected to unreasonable delay gives
    notice to the party in default making time of the essence.”
    I find that paragraph (3) fits the facts and circumstances of this case.
    [106] Even if the court accepts (which it does not) that there was no stipulation as to the
    time of delivery of the vehicle to the Claimant in all the circumstances of the case,
    with payment being made on 28th April, 2008 to the Defendant and the vehicle not
    being delivered up to mid July 2008, the court finds that this was an unreasonable
    delay.
    [107] In fact the Defendant having received the initial payment of EC$90,000.00 on 28th
    April, 2008 did not make any payment to the suppliers until the 29th July, 2008
    (US$16,000.00), and then on the 6th August, 2008 (US$15,528.00). This is of itself
    an unreasonable delay. I do not accept the Defendant’s explanation of negotiating
    the special features as the reason for the delay as stated earlier.
    [108] The Claimant in mid July 2008 gave the Defendant notice that he should have the
    vehicle in Grenada on or before Carnival Sunday, which was to fall on the 9th
    August, 2008. Bearing in mind that the Defendant had told the Claimant that the
    vehicle was in Miami at this time, was this a reasonable time for the Defendant to
    complete the contract.
    [109] Having failed to deliver the vehicle by the stated deadline, the Claimant was
    entitled to and did bring an end to the contract.
    [110] It is clear to the Court that the Defendant knew by June/July 2008 that he was
    going to be unable to complete the contract and that he could not meet the
    expectations of the Claimant under the agreement. The Claimant treated the
    contract as repudiated, and the court agrees that he was entitled so to do.
    [111] In the circumstances, the court finds for the Claimant and awards the following
    sum:
    16
    1. The return of the sum of EC$90,000.00 paid by the Claimant to
    the Defendant.
    2. The sum of $4,222.70 representing the interest on the additional
    loan taken by the Claimant to source a new vehicle locally.
    3. Prescribed costs.
    4. Interest on the principal due at the rate of 6% per annum from 30th
    May, 2008 to the date of payment.
    The Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed.
    [112] The Court thanks Counsel for their assistance.
    Margaret A. Price Findlay
    High Court Judge

    /lennon-mapson-v-berry-james/
     Prev
    Denisha Bartholomew v Lionel Walcott
    Next 
    25th – 28th November 2013
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more