Cassius v S.L. Horsford & Company Ltd et Al
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Smith, J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1997 |
| Neutral Citation | KN 1997 HC 10 |
| Docket Number | No. 210 of 1993 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Date | 10 December 1997 |
High Court
Smith, J.
No. 210 of 1993
Mr. Hesketh W. Benjamin for the plaintiff
Mr. Charles Wilkin for the defendants
Contract - Building — Plaintiff claimed that in consideration of doing work for the defendant costing $64,000 the defendant still owed them a balance of $42,500 — Defendant admitted that work was done but claimed that they had extinguished any liability to the plaintiff — Contract for the making of signs for the defendant — Court found that a reasonable sum for the work was $35,729 — No agreement as to price to be paid — balance of $14,229 to be paid by the first defendant to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a 79 year old sign maker who lives at Ponds Extension here in St. Kitts and has been a sign maker over the past 40 years. He is now hard of hearing very garrulous and retired. He was contracted through the second defendant make certain signs for the first defendant a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of this Federation and having a registered office here.
The arrangements for the work were made orally and the plaintiff embarked on the making of the signs for the first defendant before there was any agreement on what the work will cost. The plaintiff began in July, 1990 and took 54 weeks to do the work; and when it is completed he sent a bill to the second defendant claiming the sum of $64,000.00.
While the plaintiff was doing the work and still before any price had been agreed upon the first defendant paid the plaintiff the sum of $9,500.00 which presumably was a payment on account. Still before the work was completed a further payment of $12,000.00 was made in January, 1991 to the plaintiff by the first defendant.
The first defendant made no further payments to the plaintiff even after the work was completed and the plaintiff therefore had a writ of summons issued against the defendants. In the statement of claim subsequently filed the plaintiff averred that “the consideration agreed upon in the month of July, 1990 for doing the said work was $64,000.00 of which the defendants have only paid sum of $21,500.00”. He therefore claimed the balance of $42,500.00.
In their defence the defendants admitted that the plaintiff had done the work for the first defendant but they denied that there was any agreement that the work would have cost $64,000.00. They averred that no price was fixed when the oral contract was made and contended that the plaintiff later told the second defendant that he would charge $19,800.00. They also pleaded that the second defendant was at all times acting accepted as an agent of the first defendant and would not be liable to the plaintiff.
The defendants further admitted that they paid the plaintiff $21,500.00 but maintained that that amount was paid to the plaintiff as to $19,800.00 for the price for the work contracted through the second defendant and as to $1,700.00 “for additional work done by the plaintiff at the request of the second defendant”. They went on to claim that a reasonable amount for the work the plaintiff did was $19,204.77. This was less than the amount they had already paid the plaintiff and the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to $42,500.00 or any further amount.
The plaintiff was the only witness to give evidence to support his case. He was a difficult witness who constantly thought that he was entitled to say whatever he felt like saying on the stand. He testified that he was approached by the second defendant whom he had known for a very long time and how engaged him to make some signs for the defendant. This approach was made in July, 1990 and he agreed that he would do the signs. The terms of the engagement were not reduced to writing.
He further stated that he got all the materials for the making of the signs from the first defendant and he engaged other persons to help him with the work. He said the work was tedious and since he had to deal with fibre glass it was also hazardous. He produced documents and photographs to show the extent of the work and there was no challenge from the defendants as to what was done. Indeed, the first defendant was no unhappy with the quality of the work and it did not dispute the volume.
Although there was an averment in the statement of claim that the price of $64,000.00 was agreed upon the making of the oral contract in July, 1990 the plaintiff admitted on the stand that he started off the work without the price being fixed. He said that after the work was completed and the second defendant asked him what he was charging for the work he sent to the second defendant a bill for $65,000.00 which he knew was the price for the very difficult job he was asked to do. He further stated that when the second defendant complained that the charge was too high he reduced it to the $64,000.00 he sent in a second bill and he waited to collect the balance which was owing to him.
The plaintiff said that he had received a down payment of $9,500.00 from the first defendant in September, 1990 and a further payment of $12,000.00 on account in January, 1991 both of which were paid before he had told the second defendant the price he was charging for the work. He said he used that money to pay the persons whom he engaged to help him; and he denied that he had indicated to the defendants that he would charge $19,800.00 for the work.
The plaintiff said that after waiting for some time and not getting the balance he spoke to the second defendant who told him that the first defendant has asked him to wait for the payment. The plaintiff then contacted a Mr. Kelsick whom he knew to be the financial officer for the first defendant. He said that when he dunned Mr. Kelsick he was told that he would not get any more moneys than he had already received. He further said that Mr. Kelsick used very bad language to him and promised that he would see to it that the plaintiff would get not another cent. The plaintiff said that he thereafter instructed his lawyer to sue the defendants for the moneys that were owed to him.
Mr. William Kelsick was one of the four (4) witnesses who gave evidence for the defendants. He is a chartered accountant and the managing director of the first defendant. He knew that the second defendant acted as the agent for the first defendant in securing the services of the plaintiff to make the signs for the first defendant. He however did not have any dealings with the plaintiff although he said he may have spoken with him. He testified that he never agreed any amount with the plaintiff for the work but did see the bills that were sent by the plaintiff. He knew that first defendant had paid the plaintiff the amounts the plaintiff said he received and he thought that those were all that the plaintiff was entitled to get. He said that he had never accepted that the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial