JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.
The plaintiff 's action is founded on detinue. The claim arises from a breach of contract to release a vehicle after a successful tender.
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).
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.
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:
"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 [p.528] 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. 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.
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 o
