On the 28th January, 2016, judgement was entered for the plaintiff.
Ireserved my reasons for today which I now proceed to give.
The plaintiff company entered into a sale and purchase agreement withthe defendant for the latter to supply the former with vehicles.
In all 18vehicles were to be purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant.
Theplaintiff initially purchased 3 vehicles which were paid for and lattersupplied by the defendant.
Subsequent to this, the plaintiff ordered 15more vehicle (including a crane which was to be mounted on one of thevehicles). This was also paid for.
Out of the 15 vehicles the defendantsupplied 4 of them leaving 11 vehicles.
The remaining 11 vehicles has become the bone of contention betweenthe parties.
As a result, the plaintiff issued the writ of summons askingfor the following reliefs: -1. Recovery of the sum GHS1, 311, 260. 00 being value for the remaining 11 vehicles that the defendant failed to deliver to the plaintiff.
2. Interest on the said amount of GHS1, 311, 260. 00 at the prevailing bank rate from 10th day of May, 2013 to date of final payment.
3. Special damages for the sum of GHS123, 326. 74. 4. General damages for breach of contract and non-delivery of the said 11 vehicles.
5. Costs: and 6. Any other remedy this Honourable court may deem appropriate.
The case of the plaintiff is that it entered into an agreement with thedefendant company by which the defendant was to supply the plaintiffwith 18 vehicles.
The plaintiff contend that the total cost of the 18vehicles was GHS1, 902, 000. 00. The said 18 vehicles comprised of: -1. Hilux Dual Cabin – 4 2. Land Cruiser Hard Top – 8 3. Hilux Single Cabin – 1 4. Land Cruiser Prado TX-L7-1 5. Haice Mini Bus – 2 6. Land Cruiser 99 series – 1 7. Hino Truck GD8-10 Ton plus a Crane to be mounted on it – 1 It is the case of the plaintiff that it was presented with quotation forms bythe defendant for the 18 vehicles.
Plaintiff further contends that with theexception of the Hino Truck and the Toyota Land Cruiser GX-R, whichthe defendant indicated that it would be delivered within 45-90 days and45-60 days respectively, the rest of the vehicles were represented on thequotation forms given to them by the plaintiff as being available.
It is further the case of the plaintiff that it relied on these representationmade by the defendant on the quotation forms and in accordance withthe conditions of the agreement which required that the plaintiffcompleted Local Purchase
