[1992]DLHC2042 • March 27, 1992 • High Court
NANOR vs. AUTO PARTS LTD
The plaintiff, a lotto agent, entered into a contract with the defendant, a motor vehicle dealer, for the purchase of a Nissan Homer bus. The plaintiff claimed to have paid the full purchase price of ¢19,800 and that the defendant promised delivery by 20 December 1977. The defendant denied a firm contract was concluded, disputed full payment, and denied giving a delivery date. The plaintiff later paid an additional ¢1,000 after the original delivery date, following a price increase and delayed delivery. The vehicle was eventually delivered months later but allegedly allocated to other customers, leading to the plaintiff's claim for specific performance or damages for breach of contract.
read moreJUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J. The plaintiff, who at the date of the issue of this writ described himself as a lotto agent, has sued out this writ for an order of specific performance of a contract of sale of a Nissan Homer bus or in the alternative damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff claimed in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of his accompanying statement of claim that (1) a firm contract for the sale of the vehicle was concluded between him and the defendants, a firm dealing in motor vehicles on 29 June 1977; (2) that he paid the full purchase price of ¢19,800; and (3) that the defendants promised to deliver the vehicle by 20 December 1977. These were all denied by the defendants. They contended on the other hand that: (1). No firm contract was ever concluded between the parties. (2). He did not pay the full purchase price though they admitted he did pay the sum of ¢19,000. Their case was that this was on account, i.e. part payment for the price. (3). They gave no delivery dat.....