ARMAH vs. BAFFOUR [1989]DLHC538

Date	1989-01-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC538

LAMPTEY J.

AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

THE DEFENDANT NOT REPRESENTED.

[1989]DLHC538
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ARMAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BAFFOUR <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 1 GLR 207<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
28 JANUARY
1988<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

THE DEFENDANT NOT REPRESENTED.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

LAMPTEY J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY J.<o:p></o:p>In this
action the plaintiff, Nii Ashitey Armah, claimed against the defendant, Asare
Baffour, “the sum of ¢50,000 damages for breach of an agreement and the
recovery of ¢200,000 or the return of the Bedford vehicle to the plaintiff.” In
due course the plaintiff with leave of the court amended the indorsement on the
writ of summons and claimed as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(a)
recovery of the sum of ¢180,000 being the balance of the purchase price of a
Bedford engine H/P 500 together with a gear box sold and delivered to the
defendant at his request and which he has failed to pay for despite repeated
demands; (b) interest on the said amount at the current bank rate from February
1986 to the date of payment; and (c) damages.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant resisted the plaintiff’s action on the ground that he was deceived by
the plaintiff into entering into that sales transaction. The statement of
defence at paragraph 2 was as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“2. The
defendant admits paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the statement of claim but says that
he entered into the said credit sale agreement with the plaintiff after the plaintiff
had fraudulently represented to him (the defendant) that the said Bedford
engine and gear box were in good working condition. Particulars of the
fraudulent misrepresentation (a) The plaintiff deceived the defendant that he,
the plaintiff, recently bought the said engine and gear box from overseas and
they were tested and found to be in good working condition and that they needed
not be tested before the defendant put his marks and signature or both to the
credit sale agreement. (b) The plaintiff reassured the defendant that the said
Bedford engine and gear box were faultless and could work and pay for
themselves within two months, which was false to the knowledge of the
plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant by his statement of defence sought to repudiate the transaction on
the above ground. The case of the plaintiff is fairly simple. He told the court
that he brought a number of “home-used engines” from Holland into the country
for the purpose of selling them. The defendant was introduced to the plaintiff
by one Ishmael Sowah as a person interested in buying one of the said engines.
The plaintiff offered to the defendant one “Bedford home-used engine” for sale
at ¢180,000. The defendant agreed to purchase the engine at a price of ¢200,000
on instalment basis. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written
agreement to cover the transaction they had entered into. The agreement was put
in evidence without objection as exhibit A. The mode of payment of the agreed
purchase price of ¢200,000 was stated at paragraph 2 as follows: “Mode of
payment: Payment will be made by the purchaser by instalments of ¢50,000
fortnightly, i.e. every two weeks until the sum total of ¢200,000 is paid
fully.” Then at paragraph 3 of exhibit A it was provided that it is agreed that
the vendor (a mistake for purchaser) commences payment by the end of February
1986.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff stated that the engine was tested in the presence of the defendant.
That the defendant felt satisfied and thereafter took delivery of it. According
to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to make any payment to him at the end of
February 1986 so he began to look for the defendant. He saw the defendant some
time in April 1986 and upon demand he received ¢20,000 from the defendant. The
plaintiff said he did not see the defendant again hence he took the instant
action. I ought to draw attention to paragraph F of exhibit A which provided as
follows: “ That should the purchaser fail to pay the money, the vendor reserves
the right to take legal action against him to retrieve the outstanding amount.”
The plaintiff closed his case without calling witnesses.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant gave evidence on his behalf and called witnesses. He told the court
that he went to the house of the plaintiff and saw an engine which the
plai</main>