MOTOR PARTS AGENCIES AND ANOTHER v. YAW OFOSU

JUDGMENT OF BLAY J.S.C.

[His lordship read the statement of claim and the defence as summarised in the headnote and continued:] At the trial, the plaintiff deposed that he was introduced by the second defendant to the manager of the first defendant in Accra. He then negotiated with the manager for the sale to him of one of the firm's Austin buses, and after discussion it was agreed that he could have the bus costing £G1,030, upon payment of a deposit of £G200, and an undertaking to pay the balance by instalments of £G60 per month. He said he paid the sum of £G200 deposit but took no receipt for it.

[p.593]

After that the manager gave him a note to S.C.O.A. Motors where he was shown the type of bus he wanted. He later returned to the shop of the first defendant where the manager handed him a receipt for the deposit he had paid. When he looked at the receipt he discovered that it had been made out in the name of the second defendant, whereupon he queried the manager about the name in the receipt and was told that it was the practice of the company to issue receipts in the name of the person who introduced the purchaser and not to the purchaser himself. He protested and asked the manager to return his deposit but he refused to do so and put him off by saying that he should wait until the bus was delivered by S.C.O.A. He subsequently took delivery of the bus even though the manager did not change the name on the receipt, and made several payments to the first defendant and on each occasion the receipt was issued in the name of the second defendant. He said he had in all paid the sum of £G730 in respect of which he held receipts in the name of the second defendant. Besides the £G730 paid by him personally he sent a further sum of £G37 7s. to the first defendant in respect of which he had no receipt. Under cross-examination he admitted that he did not sign any hire-purchase agreement with the defendants. He said that although one was promised, the defendants did not give him any.

It would be seen that although the plaintiff based the whole of his claim on the existence of a hire-purchase agreement between him and the defendants, he nowhere in his evidence-in-chief referred to any such agreement. And under cross-examination he denied signing any by himself or through anyone on his behalf.

The plaintiff called only one witness at the trial who nowhere in his evidence mentioned the existence of a hire-purchase agreement either written or oral between the p