Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Abdallah Salum v. Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd., Civ. App. 16-D-66; 10/7/67; Georges, C.J.



Abdallah Salum v. Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd., Civ. App. 16-D-66; 10/7/67; Georges, C.J.

Appellant obtained a lorry from respondent on hire purchase. Appellant did not keep up the required payments, whereupon respondent repossessed the vehicle. The contract between the parties provided, inter alia, that appellant was liable for the cost of all repairs and replacement necessary to put the vehicle in good working order. Item 9 of the plaint sought damages because” …. The hirer failed to maintain the said chattel in good repair and to return the same in good order and condition.” The lorry had been in an accident, for which respondent obtained Shs. 4,281/- in insurance proceeds. Estimated damage to the vehicle was Shs. 6,281/- (The policy contained a 100 pound  deductible clause.) The only real issue on appeal was how much, if anything, respondent could recover for the damage to the lorry. The trial court awarded Shs. 6,281/- to respondent.

            Held: (1) Even though item 9 of the plaint does not specify in what way the lorry was in bad repair, it clearly put appellant on notice as to the nature of respondent’s claim. (2) In computing the amount owed, appellant should have been credited for the Shs. 4,281/- paid by the insurance company to respondent. The damages awarded in the court below were reduced accordingly.

 


Post a Comment

0 Comments