Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 17, 1967
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.
The plaintiff entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the defendant company in March 1962. Under it the plaintiff hired a Simca Etoile car No. SG 5187 which was to become her property after a cash deposit of £G300 and the payment of ten monthly instalments of £G41 9s; the total amount payable being £G714 10s. The plaintiff paid all but £G79 10s.
Apparently some fault developed in the car in July 1963, which necessitated repairs to the tune of £G396 8s. 2d. Of this amount, the plaintiff paid £G100 in cash. And it was arranged that the balance be paid by six monthly instalments of £G45 and a final instalment of £G26 8s. 2d. This arrangement was evidenced by a letter written by the defendant company to the plaintiff on 16 August 1963, and produced by the plaintiff. It was also signed by the plaintiff's husband, Mr. Nseyen, who was her sole witness in the case and who apparently carried on all negotiations and transactions on her behalf as far as this car was concerned. Part of the arrangement was in the following terms: "in case the payment conditions should not be [p.60] fulfilled the company reserve the right to seize the above mentioned car."
There was a further term by which the defendant company guaranteed parts of the car as follows: "Incidentally, we are prepared to grant a guarantee of six months to the engine parts or 5,000 miles." The parties' claims in this dispute have centred round their understanding of the rights and duties to which these terms gave rise.
On or about 7 September 1963, the car was sent back to the defendant company's workshop for what Mr. Nseyen described as an engine check-up because the car was not working properly. He thought there was a fault in the engine which made it impossible for the car to run. To his surprise, he was charged £G38 19s. 6d. He expected that the work done would be covered by the guarantee. So he protested to the workshop manager, Mr. Ibeken, and collected the car without paying for the repairs. Mr. Ibeken's version of the matter was different.
According to him, on 7 September 1963, when the car was brought to the workshop, there was no fault with the engine parts. The fault then was with the transmission, also described as the differential, which had nothing to do with the engine parts. Therefore the guarantee did not cover this repair and that was why the charge of £G38 19s. 6d for the repair was made. He put in a document, described as a job card, as evidence of the
AI Generated Summary
In March 1962, the plaintiff entered a hire‑purchase with the defendant company for a Simca Etoile SG 5187, paying a £G300 deposit and monthly instalments toward £G714 10s, leaving £G79 10s unpaid. After a July 1963 breakdown, major repairs were arranged by a letter on 16 August 1963: £G100 paid, the balance by instalments, a six‑month/5,000‑mile engine‑parts guarantee, and a clause reserving seizure on default. In September 1963 non‑engine faults (transmission/differential) were repaired and charged £G38 19s. 6d; the plaintiff refused, believing the guarantee applied. The car broke down again in October 1963 and was only brought in February 1964, when the defendant retained it over arrears. The court held section 69 of the Sale of Goods Act governs hire‑purchase repossession but does not bar retention under the collateral repair agreement; the September repairs were not guaranteed and the plaintiff failed to prove the guarantee remained in force. The action failed; judgment was for the defendant.