RAPHAEL SWANZY vs GLANDERSON BUILDERSPACK LTD
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for breach of contract claiming the roofing sheets supplied were defective and caused financial loss. The court found that the Defendant breached the warranty by providing substandard materials, and awarded the Plaintiff a refund, general damages, and interest. The claim for special damages was denied due to a lack of evidence.
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was for the following:
i. A refund of the purchase price of the roofing sheets of GH¢9, 943. 20.
ii. Interest on the said amount of GH¢9, 943. 20 at the prevailing bank rate from 9th September 2013 till date of final payment.
iii. A refund of the cost and installation of the Zincalume Rain Gutter being an amount of GH¢1, 029. 87
iv. Interest on the said amount of GH¢1, 029. 87
v. Special Damages in the sum of GH¢900. 00
vi. General Damages
vii. Costs
It was the Plaintiff’s case that he entered into a contract with the Defendant through his agent, Daveconsult to have his house in Cape-Coast roofed at a total cost of GH¢10, 973. 07. Whilst the roof was still under warranty, it experienced a change in colour thus reducing the aesthetic value of the house.
Being a businessman, he needed a credit facility to boost his business.
The house was to be used as collateral.
However due to the problem with the roof, there was a possibility that the house would not be available to be used as intended.
According to the Plaintiff, his complaints to the Defendant went unheeded.
In the end he had to have the roofing sheets removed and replaced at extra cost to him.
The Defendant in resisting the claim denied that it had ever entered into any contract with the Plaintiff.
Though it stated that it had had dealings with Dav consult, it denied that there was a correlation between Dav consult and the Plaintiff.
It admitted receiving complaints from Dav consult about the changing colour of a roof it had installed.
As a result, it agreed with Dave consult to visit the site to ascertain the problem for itself.
This visit never materialized as Dav consult failed to turn up as scheduled.
The Defendant later received pictures of the roof and a letter from the Plaintiff’s lawyer demanding the replacement of the roof.
The Defendant stated that on reviewing the pictures, it suggested that the roof be retouched to bring back the sheen.
The Plaintiff then complained about the leakage to the roof.
The Defendant then offered to re-roof the house at 50% of the cost. The Plaintiff neither conveyed to the Defendant his acceptance nor rejection of this offer.
He then proceeded to institute the instant suit.
The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff was not entitled to his claims. The following issues were forwarded to this court for determination:
1. Whether there was a breach of warranty of the contract terms by the Defendant