HAWKRAD JOD CONTRACTS LTD vs CAITEC DELTA LTD
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP, ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ., JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff purchased ten trucks from Defendant with a warranty. The trucks frequently broke down shortly after purchase, leading to significant losses for the Plaintiff. The court found that the trucks had latent defects, a breach of the warranty provided by Defendant. Plaintiff was awarded damages for the losses incurred, though claims for losses due to non-renewal of a contract were dismissed. Legal principles from contract and commercial law were applied, emphasizing implied warranties and the measure of damages for breach of contract.
Plaintiff claims per the endorsement on its writ of summons the following reliefs: 1. Declaration that the Defendant is in breach of the warranty covering the ten shackman trucks purchased by the Plaintiff from the defendant to execute a haulage contract with Adamus Resources Ltd. 2. An order for the recovery of Gh¢1, 877, 289. 75 being the total loss of income for the period February to June, 2014 as a result of the breakdown of the said trucks.
3. Cost PLAINTIFF’S CASE Plaintiff has provided the basis for his claim in the statement of claim that accompanied the writ.
Plaintiff avers that in the year November, 2013, it won a near pit haulage contract to undertake for Adamus Resource a haulage of its ore at Adamus Nzema site in the Western Region.
It accordingly approached Cal Bank for a loan to enable it purchase trucks to undertake the haulage contract.
Cal Bank accordingly granted it two banking facility loans all totaling an amount of $US845. 000. 000. Plaintiff upon the release of an amount of $US422. 500. 00 to defendant by Cal Bank procured the ten trucks to start its operations.
Plaintiff claim that it took delivery of the ten trucks in January, 2014 to start the operation of the haulage of the ore with an assurance by defendant that the trucks were fit for the purpose which they were purchased for and with a one year warranty or a 30. 000 km whichever was earlier in time.
According to Plaintiff it realized a few months into the operation of the trucks that the trucks purchased proved to be unfit for the purpose for which they were bought.
Plaintiff started experiencing break down of the trucks just two months of being used and this compelled it to resort to alternative means of the haulage of the ore and in February alone the trucks were down for 65 days and the use of alternative means of haulage cost it Ghc166. 272. 75. Further breakdown for the subsequent months were provided as follows: March – 32 days with the cost of alternative hiring of trucks at Ghc77. 112. 00 April – 98 days with the cost of alternative trucks at Ghc259. 308. 00 May – cost of Ghc375. 732. 00 June - cost of Ghc463. 050. 00. July - cost of Ghc535, 819. 75 and that all these were the aggregate cost of hiring alternate trucks to execute the contract.
Plaintiff further claim that two of the trucks were involved in accident due to break failures which then compelled Adamus Resources Ltd. to warn Plaintiff that the trucks being used for the work did not meet mining saf