SACKEY v. FATTAL
June 25, 1959
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J.
- GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.
- ACOLATSE J
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
June 25, 1959
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT OF GRANVILLE SHARPE J.A.
(His lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:—)
In the case of each delivery it could hardly be questioned on the evidence that certain bales contained goods which were much inferior to sample, and this state of affairs seems to have been [p.178] accepted by the defendant. An attempt was, however, made by him, and by Counsel on his behalf at the trial, to deny that the order for 40 bales was placed with him by the plaintiff. This suggestion was repeated by learned Counsel before this Court. It cannot on the evidence be accepted.
The defendant was, when his evidence is examined, of defective memory, and the evidence of the witness Brown, who at the material times worked for the defendant as Promotion Sales Manager was clear and emphatic, and upon it, and the evidence of the documents, the learned Judge was fully entitled to find that each of the contracts, for breach of which the plaintiff claimed damages, was a contract entered into with the defendant.
Learned Counsel before the trial-Judge, and indeed the defendant himself, had each pinned his faith for the purposes of the defence on a contention that the defendant had contracted only as an agent, and not in such circumstances as to render himself personally liable to the plaintiff. The question whether an agent, even if his agency and his principals are disclosed, is in the circumstances of the transaction personally liable is a question of fact to be decided upon the evidence in any particular case.
In the instant case, the learned Judge resolved this question in favour of the plaintiff, on the grounds that the plaintiff, an illiterate, gave orders to the defendant and not to the foreign principals for goods, for which she paid the defendant in this country; that it would be absurd to suppose that the parties to the contracts intended that the plaintiff should look to persons in Japan to accept liability on the contracts to the exclusion of the defendant, and that the circumstances were such as to indicate clearly that it was intended that the defendant should and did contract personally. I cannot say that the learned Judge was not justified on the evidence in reaching such a conclusion. I respectfully agree with him.
A further point was argued by learned Counsel for the appellant, though it was not at any time raised in the Court below. Shortly put, the contention of Mr. Asafu-Adjaye was that a buyer of goods who has accepted the goods in the sense of taking t
AI Generated Summary
Granville Sharpe J.A. authored an appellate judgment concerning a sale-of-goods dispute over multiple textile deliveries, including a 40-bale order. The defendant and his counsel attempted to deny that the 40-bale order was placed with him and argued he contracted only as agent for foreign principals. Relying on emphatic testimony from Brown, the defendants Promotion Sales Manager, and documentary evidence, the court affirmed the trial judges finding that the contracts were made with the defendant personally. The plaintiff, an illiterate buyer who paid the defendant locally and lacked any opportunity to inspect before payment and possession, immediately complained upon discovering large portions were inferior to sample. Addressing Mr. Asafu-Adjayes acceptance-bar-damages theory, the court applied Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. Boullen & Gatenby to recognize the buyers right to retain the whole and claim damages for inferior parts. Market price evidence of 5 per piece was accepted. The appeal was dismissed, with Van Lare J.A. as C.J. and Acolatse J concurring.