LEXI BOOK v. TOYS AND MORE LTD
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff, a French company, demanded payment for goods supplied to Defendant, a Ghanaian company, which were delivered in October 2011. Defendant did not pay, claiming the goods were to be paid for only after being sold and that they were destroyed by a flood in November 2012. Issues involved whether the payment terms required prior sale, timely payment within 60 days, and claims of document delays. The court ruled against the Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to $28,893.02 plus interest due to the lack of genuine dispute and the untenable defenses provided by the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff claims the reliefs endorsed on its writ issued against the Defendant the following:
a) Recovery of the sum of US$28,893.02 or its cedi equivalent being the unpaid purchase price of goods sold and delivered to Defendant
b) Interest on the sum of US$28,893.02 at the prevailing bank rate from 20th April, 2012 to date of final payment.
c) Costs of the action
Further or other orders as may be just or proper in the circumstances.
Plaintiff, a foreign company based in France claim that upon a request from Defendant, a Ghanaian company it agreed to supply electronic toys and learning materials to the Defendant with the goods corresponding to the order made by the Defendant. That the goods arrived at the port of Tema on the 28th of October, 2011 aboard vessel Portofino and another arriving on the 19th of October, 2011 from the port of Anvers. Plaintiff contend that upon arrival Defendant cleared the goods but has refused to pay since at 20th April, 2012. To Plaintiff numerous demands for the payment has not been heeded by the Defendant and hence the prayers contained in the endorsement on the writ.
Defendant in its statement of defence admit of a long standing business relationship between the parties since 2004. And that the payment of goods supplied by Plaintiff was conditioned upon the successful sale of the goods by Defendant. And that the goods supplied Defendant was only paid for after the goods are cleared and sold to customers in Ghana. Defendant further claim that Plaintiff delayed in notifying it of the shipment of the goods whiles the shipping documents were also received late leading to the goods being kept in an Aktos bonded warehouse. To Defendant whiles the goods were being kept at the warehouse, the goods were destroyed by a major flood that engulfed the warehouse on the 19th of November, 2012. And as a result the goods together with others belonging to other persons were destroyed under proper supervision. And notwithstanding the destruction of the goods it expressed the desire to pay for the goods at a discounted price for the sake of maintaining the healthy relationship between the parties but Plaintiff claimed to have repudiated the offer. Defendant finally claim that he did not clear the goods for sale due to its destruction. Plaintiff joined issues with Defendant in its reply and further claim that per the proforma invoice the parties agreed that payment for the goods was to be rendered within sixty days from the date