Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 21, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT
The Claim of the Plaintiff is to recover against the Defendant for the following reliefs:
A. Recovery of an amount of Four Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC4,000.00) being
refund of the purchase price for the sale of a tricycle motor (pragia) sold to the
Plaintiff by the Defendant which has turned out to be faulty.
B. Interest on the amount stated supra at the prevailing bank rate from December
2022/January 2023 till date of final payment and cost.
The case of the Plaintiff
The case of the Plaintiff is essentially that he bought the pragia from the Defendant at
an agreed price of GHC4,000.00 and in a matter of days, the tricycle turned out to be
faulty. Plaintiff testified that he has since returned the motorcycle to the Defendant and
the Defendant has refused to refund his GHC4,000.00 to him.
The case of the Defendant The Defendant testified himself and called two other witnesses. The case of the
Defendant is that the motor tricycle (pragia) was not faulty at the time of the sale and
that the Plaintiff used the motor tricycle for more than one week before returning same.
Issue before the court
In the opinion of the court, the issue before the court is whether or not the court should
order for a refund of the sum Plaintiff paid for the motorcycle.
SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1962 (ACT 137)
In resolving the issue, the court resorts to the Sale of Goods Act, 1962, Act 137.
Section 13 (1) a of Act 137 states that there is an implied condition that the goods are
free from defects which are not declared or known to the buyer before or at the time
when the contract is made.
Section 49 of the Act 137 provides instances when buyer has right to reject and recover
the price.
Sub-section 1 of 49 provides as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this Act the buyer is entitled to reject the goods and to
refuse to pay, or as the case may be, to recover, the price where —
(a) the seller is guilty of a breach of a fundamental obligation; or
(b) the seller is guilty of a breach, not being of a trivial nature, of a condition of
the contract, whether the breach is in respect of all of the goods or, subject to
subsection (2), of part only; or (c) the buyer has entered into the contract as a result of fraudulent or innocent
misrepresentation on the part of the seller.
Appling the above sections to the facts, the court is of the opinion that the implied
condition that the motor tricycle was free from defect can be imputed into the
transaction between
AI Generated Summary
Judge Stanley Adjei adjudicated a dispute arising from the sale of a motor tricycle, locally known as a pragia, for GHC4,000. Shortly after purchase, the vehicle became faulty. The buyer returned it to the seller and sought a refund, interest, and costs. The seller denied any defect at the time of sale and claimed the buyer used the tricycle for more than a week before returning it. Applying the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), the court recognized an implied condition that goods are free from undisclosed defects (section 13(1)(a)) and determined that the facts supported imputing this condition to the transaction. The court further invoked section 49(1)(c), finding the purchase resulted from fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation that the tricycle was in good condition, entitling the buyer to reject and recover the price. The court ordered refund, interest from January 2023, and costs of GHC500.