[1973]DLHC2283 • December 18, 1973 • High Court
HAMMOND vs. AINOOSON
The plaintiff was introduced to the defendant regarding the defendant's damaged fishing boat. The defendant requested the plaintiff to find financing for repairs, which eventually the defendant funded himself. The plaintiff agreed to supervise the repairs at the Boatyard Corporation, Tema, purchasing materials as needed, for which she was to receive a daily allowance of ¢3.00. Additionally, the plaintiff was to sell all fish caught by the boat and share profits equally with the defendant after expenses. After repairs and launching, the plaintiff managed the fishing operations but was later dismissed following disputes involving fishermen and the defendant's support for their demands. The plaintiff claims unpaid allowances and expenses incurred during the supervision and operation period.
read moreThe plaintiff is claiming the sum of ¢2,373.26 from the defendant for services rendered and for work done for the benefit of the defendant. Some time in 1965, the plaintiff was introduced to the defendant as the person whose fishing boat had become unserviceable due to damage it had suffered at sea. The parties became friendly after the said introduction, and the defendant requested the plaintiff to find someone to finance the repairs of the said boat. The plaintiff said she recommended one Miss Epton, but that lady was unable to undertake the repairs. The defendant eventually decided to find money himself for the repairs. The boat was sent to the Boatyard Corporation, Tema, and the defendant requested the plaintiff to supervise the repairs. That is, the plaintiff was to be at the Boatyard Corporation workshop during the period of repairs, and she was to purchase for the workers materials needed for the repairs and which could not be obtained from the corporation’s own store. Th...