EMMANUEL HAIZEL v. PREMIUM MOTORS GHANA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

i. Introduction:

[1] The Plaintiff, Emmanuel Haizel says he heard an advert on Citi 97.3 FM Radio with regards to a vehicle the Defendant, Premium Motors Ghana Limited was offering for sale. He made an enquiry through the website of the Company about the advert. He received a telephone call from a Sales Agent of the Company who confirmed the Company was running the advertisement campaign and was offering Renault Logan vehicles for the promotion at a price of USD$12,950.00. The Plaintiff expressed interest and further to correspondence between the Plaintiff and the agents of the Company he paid the said sum of money for the vehicle. Mr. Haizel in this suit is alleging that the Defendant breached the terms of the contract by not delivering the vehicle within the time frame agreed to and also delivered to him a vehicle different from the model he contracted for. Mr. Haizel asserts that he acted on the representation made by an agent of the Company in regards to the model and make of vehicle to part with the money. He has therefore sued for breach of contract and a refund of the money paid from the Defendant’s as well as interest.

[2] The Defendant takes the position it did not contract to sell to Mr. Haizel a 2015-2016 Renault Logan and it also did not give to Mr. Haizel a Renault Dacia as he claims. The Defendant takes the position that the Plaintiff is litigious and has acted based on his lack of knowledge of the automobile industry and how it operates. According to the Defendant the information given to the Plaintiff about the model of the vehicle by its Sales Executive was a mistake and she was in error. According to the Defendant the information that the model was a 2015-2016 Renault model was given after the contract had already been concluded and therefore the Plaintiff could not include new terms into the contract. The Defendant takes the position that the vehicle the Plaintiff contracted for is available and therefore he should be ordered to take delivery of same.

[3] The Defendant Company counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract including general damages for expenses incurred in registering two separate vehicles and the payment of customs duties and VAT among others.

[4] The issues set down at the close of pleadings are:

1. Whether or not there is a valid contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the purchase of a brand new beige coloured 2015-2016 manufactured Renault Logan vehicle?

2. Whether or not t