RHODERLINE BAAFOUR GYIMAH vs. MODERN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE

JUDGMENT By a writ of summons issued at the instance of plaintiff against the defendant on the 3rd July 2009, the plaintiff claims the following: 1. A declaration that on a true construction of Act 137 (1) @ there is an implied warranty as tothe quality or fitness for Kyron car bought from the defendant and that the warranty has been breached. 2. An order for the revocation of the contract of sale in respect of the Kyron car bought or alternatively for damages. 3. An order for the refund of monies spent in repairing the defects which repairs were undertaken by the defendant. 4. Interest on the monies refunded in 2 above from date of judgment to date of payment. 5. Loss of use for 20 days GH¢30 per day. 6. Cost. There is much common ground between the parties on the facts which triggered this action. The plaintiff bought a 4 X 4 Kyron car from the defendant company on the 12th day of February 2008. The parties are however diverge on the quality and performance of the said vehic....