Thurston and Company Ltd v Skerritt

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1970
• Neutral Citation: KN 1970 HC 4
• Docket Number: No. 47 of 1970
• Date: 01 January 1970

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 47 of 1970

Thurston and Co. Ltd.

and

Skerritt

Appearances:

C.F. Henville for the plaintiff.

F.E. Kelsick for the defendant.

Contract - Debt — Goods sold and delivered.

Facts: The plaintiff bought an action for $980.45 being the balance due for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. Whether the debt existed.

Held: Finding on the evidence that the debt existed. Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum claimed.

Glasgow, J.

1 The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for the sum of $980.45 being the balance alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. In his defence the defendant does not admit owing the plaintiff the sum claimed or any other sum. In addition the defendant counterclaims against the plaintiff for $1620.38 damages.

2 The brief facts as I find them, are as follows: In April 1967 the defendant wanted to buy a boat. He therefore went to one Colin Pereira, the manager of the Department of the plaintiff's company's business, which deals in boats. The defendant told Mr. Pereira that he was interested in buying a wooden boat kit. Mr. Pereira showed the defendant photographs of various boats including one of a Medallion II 16 ft. Aluminium Chrysler Outboard version Boat. The defendant liked the Medallion boat because as he said, it was aluminum and would stand up better than other boats in the tropics. However, after looking at the specifications, the defendant realised that the Medallion boat would be rather difficult to handle: with the engines on, it would weigh well over 1000 pounds.

3 Mr. Pereira told the defendant that the plaintiff Company intended to build a boatyard at the part of the Bay Front known as “The Sands” and “that the intention was to have garages like, and a winch, and that the intention was to rent to interested persons.” Mr. Pereira also told the defendant that application had been made to the authorities for permission to put down this boat yard, but that the plaintiff Company was going on clearing the land in anticipation that permission would be given to put down the boat yard. Mr. Pereira told the defendant that he would be able to rent the facilities. The defendant next went and spoke with Mr. Geoffrey Boon, the Managing Director of the plaintiff Company. Mr. Boon confirmed what Mr. Pereira had said. The defendant encouraged by the news of the proposed boat yard, placed an order for the Medallion boat on the very favourable terms of “landed cost plus 5 per cent upon delivery”.

4 In April, 1967 the defendant paid two sums of money an account of the Medallion boat—$440 and $400. The boat arrived in August, 1967. On arrival it had a few scratches and a broken plastic light lens. An allowance was made for the broken lens by the insurance assessors. The boat remained in the plaintiff's Company's yard up to November, 1968. In November, 1968 Mr. Pereira told the defendant that the yard would be...