ADDAI vs. PIONEER TOBACCO CO. LTD. [1989]DLSC511

Date	1989-01-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC511

FRANCOIS J.S.C.

T.E.K. AMESIMEKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

STANLEY AMARTEIFIO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1989]DLSC511
																																						<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" >ADDAI <o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;vs. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>PIONEER TOBACCO CO. LTD. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90]1 GLR 526<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:
13 JANUARY
1989<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">

T.E.K. AMESIMEKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

STANLEY AMARTEIFIO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

FRANCOIS J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff ‘s action is founded on detinue. The claim arises from a breach of
contract to release a vehicle after a successful tender.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 3 June
1986, the defendants placed advertisements in some local newspapers expressing
an intention to sell some of their vehicles. The advertisement in the Ghanaian
Times of 3 June 1986 was repeated on 6 June 1986 and in the Peoples Daily
Graphic of 12 June 1986 (see exhibits a, b and 1).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff who describes himself as a dealer in vehicles, says the advertisement
of 3 June caught his eye and he consequently sent bids to the defendants for
all the vehicles advertised. He was unsuccessful in all the bids except one
which related to a Land Rover, ARA 74. It is the subject of controversy in this
suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff pleaded that prior to his tender, he inspected the Land Rover ARA 74,
which was then at the workshop of Leyland Motors. Indeed, the advertisements
provided for such an inspection. It was the plaintiff’s case that he observed a
new engine being mounted on ARA 74, and being encouraged by such a tempting
offer, bid for the vehicle in the sum of ¢380,000. In paragraph 7 of his
statement of claim, the plaintiff’s perception of the bargain that induced him
to bid is summed up as follows:<o:p></o:p>“7.
Encouraged by and having been satisfied with the new engine which was mounted
on the chassis of the said vehicle No. ARA 74, the plaintiff in his letter of 3
June 1989 offered to buy the vehicle in the state and condition in which he
found it at the time of his inspection, for the sum of ¢380,000.” of the
defendants to the plaintiff’s bid, was a letter of acceptance dated 26 June
1986 (exhibit C). This letter further requested the plaintiff to effect payment
by Friday 18 July 1986.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 4 July
the plaintiff paid the sum of ¢380,000 and was issued with a receipt in
acknowledgment (exhibit D). The defendants, further instructed the Licensing
Department of the Ghana Police Motor Unit by a letter of 4 July (exhibit E) to
regularise their records by the transfer of ownership of the said Land Rover to
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At that
stage the plaintiff considered himself the proud owner of ARA 74. The debate
whether it carried a new engine or an old one had not then erupted to sour
matters. Broadly then, the defendants’ offer to sell, with the reciprocal successful
bid of the plaintiff’s, were not at that stage the subject of dispute. Indeed,
the dispute had remained within the narrow confines of what was offered for
sale.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants say no new engine was mounted on the Land Rover ARA 74 at the time
it was advertised for sale. The plaint</main>