Nana Nkansah Boadu v. Maso Construction Ltd

The Plaintiff filed the instant writ for redress and for the reliefs endorsed on thewrit of summons.

These were recovery of the sum of $100, 000. 00 with interest atthe prevailing bank rate and costs.

It was the Plaintiff’s case that he sold an excavator to the Defendant at a cost of$120, 000. 00. The Defendant had made a part payment of $20, 000. 00 and hadfailed to pay the outstanding balance of $100, 000. 00 The Defendant’s version of events was that it agreed to buy a 1999 modelexcavator from the Plaintiff.

This excavator was to be paid for in 6 installments.

The Plaintiff however breached the contract by delivering to it, a 1995 modelexcavator instead of the agreed 1999 model.

The Defendant maintained that thePlaintiff had been fraudulent in his conduct towards it.

The following issues were set down for trial: 1. Whether or not the Plaintiff offered a 1995 or 1999 excavator for sale to the Defendant? 2. Whether or not the Defendant by itself or by its agent did not inspect the excavator before its acceptance and payment of same? 3. Whether or not the Plaintiff offered any replacement excavator at all to the Defendant? 4. Whether or not it was the Plaintiff or Defendant who delivered the excavator to the Defendant’s site? 5. Whether or not the Plaintiff did not discharge all his obligations under the contract? 6. Whether or not the Defendant is not in breach of contract of the sale agreement when it stopped the payments of the subsequent installments? 7. Whether or not the Defendant demanded at any point a refund of the first cheque payment of $20, 000. 00? 8. Whether or not the Defendant is entitled to any refund at all in respect of the first payment? 9. Whether or not the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the outstanding balance of the price in the sum of US$100, 000. 00 plus interest assessed at the current bank rate? 10. Whether or not the Defendant asked for a 1995 or 1999 350 excavator? 11. Whether or not the delivery of the 350 1995 excavator to the Defendant was fraudulent on the part of the Plaintiff? The crux of the matter is on the matter of the goods contracted for andeventually delivered.

This is where issue 1 comes in.

Whether or not the Plaintiff offered a 1995 or 1999 excavator for sale to theDefendant? The undisputed facts are that the Plaintiff offered and the Defendant acceptedto buy an excavator for $120, 000. 00. Whilst the Plaintiff says the excavatorbargained for was a 1995 model, the Defendant is equally insistent th