S. A. TURQUI & BROS. vs. LAMPTEY

[His lordship referred to the facts as stated in the headnote supra and continued:] It is quite clear to me that the minds of the parties were not ad idem as to what the estimated cost of £45 included. There is therefore no binding contract between the parties. It is not surprising therefore that the plaintiffs’ claim is laid in detinue and not in breach of contract. To succeed on a claim in detinue the plaintiff must prove that the possession of the chattel by the defendant is wrongful, that a proper demand has been made for its return and the defendant has refused to return it. In this case the defendant came into possession of the vehicle lawfully. If there had been a demand for its return the continued possession would, as from the date of refusal to return it, be unlawful. But there is no evidence of demand as required by law to determine the original lawful possession so as to make the defendant’s continued possession wrongful. The defendant’s possession never at any tim...