George McDonald v Samuel Lewis

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Judge: Actie, J.
• Judgment Date: 27 February 2023
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2023] ECSC J0227-5
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0448 (formerly GDAHCV2021/0075)

Between:

George McDonald

Claimant

and

Samuel Lewis

Defendant

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0448 (formerly GDAHCV2021/0075)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Ms. Herricia Willis for the Claimant

Mr. Benjamin Hood for the Defendant

Actie, J.

1 In a claim form filed on 19 ^th February 2021, the claimant claims an outstanding debt in the sum of $25,000.00; interest; such further or other relief as the court deems fit and costs.

Facts

2 It is uncontroverted that the parties entered into an oral contract agreement for the claimant to import a 2012/2013 Caterpillar Yellow 950h Loader for the sum of $153,784.00, however the manufacturer delivered a 2003 Loader to the claimant instead of a 2012/2013 Caterpillar Yellow 950h model. The contract being breached, the claimant was under a duty to refund the defendant the deposit of $60,000.00 paid for the 2012/2013 Caterpillar Yellow 950h Loader.

3 The claimant avers that subsequently, the parties entered into an oral agreement for the defendant to purchase the 2003 Loader for $100,000.00, but was reduced to $85,000.00 and, taking into consideration the deposit already paid, leaving a balance of $25,000.00 to be paid by the defendant. The claimant avers that the parties agreed that the defendant would pay the remaining balance of $25,000.00 to the claimant on or before 15 ^th November 2019.

4 In August 2019, the defendant took delivery of the 2003 but failed to pay the balance as agreed.

The Defendant's case

5 It is the defendant's case that the 2003 Loader was in deplorable condition, and he initially refused to accept, but eventually accepted the 2003 Loader in an effort to mitigate his losses, although he did not agree to pay the balance of monies due for the 2003 Loader.

6 The defendant states that in the circumstances, he decided to purchase another machine and that he paid $260,900.00 for same. The defendant counterclaims against the claimant for breach of contract, the result of which he incurred loss and damage. The particulars of the breach, as pleaded by the defendant, include: failure to deliver a 2012 Caterpillar 950h Loader; failure to repair the 2003 Liugong Loader; and failure to return the deposit of $60,000.00. The defendant counterclaims for special damages of $320,900.00; general damages for breach of contract; costs; interest; and further or other relief as the court deems fit.

7 The sole issue is whether there was second valid oral contract between the parties for the purchase of the 2003 Loader by the defendant.

8 In the case of Donald Bridgeman v HKZ INC 1 the following was stated:

“The essential elements of a valid contract are trite. There must be an offer, an unconditional acceptance of that offer by another person and there must be consideration flowing from the promisor… To give rise to a binding agreement, the contracting parties must evince an intention to create legal

relations and with each other… In Keith Garvey v Richardo Richards, Harris JA (at para 10) put it this way:

“It is well-settled that an agreement is not binding as a contract unless it shows an intention by the parties to create a legal relationship. Generally, three basic rules underpin the formation of a contract, namely, an agreement, an intention to enter into the contractual relationship and consideration. For a contract to be valid and enforceable all essential terms governing the relationship of the parties must be incorporated therein. The subject matter must be certain. There must be positive evidence that a contractual obligation, born out of an oral written agreement, is in existence.”

9 The defendant said that he and the claimant came into an agreement that the claimant would supply the needed parts to repair the machine and would bear the...