Daddy Wayne's Grocery Bar Ltd v Gita K.K. Pasupeleti

JurisdictionGrenada
JudgeActie, J.
Judgment Date23 April 2024
Judgment citation (vLex)[2024] ECSC J0423-1
Docket NumberCLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2022/0377
CourtHigh Court (Grenada)
Between:
Daddy Wayne's Grocery Bar Ltd.
Claimant
and
Gita K.K. Pasupeleti (Trading as “Kumar Department Store”)
Defendant
Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2022/0377

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Mr. Ruggles Ferguson KC for the Claimant

Ms. Deborah St. Bernard with Ms Ssavanna Seales for the Defendant

RULING
Actie, J.
1

The main issue arising on this claim is whether the defendant is indebted to the claimant in the sum of $17,771.41.

2

The claimant is a company which frequently supplied the defendant with wholesale items for resale. It is agreed that in or around July 2018, the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby the claimant would supply the defendant with 40 mattresses, 150 foams and 500 pillows (hereafter referred to as “the disputed order”).

3

It is the claimant's case that that the mattresses were delivered to the defendant on 28 th July 2018, and the foams and pillows on 2 nd August 2018. The claimant issued an invoice on the 21 st August 2018 to the defendant for all the items ordered and delivered in the sum of $17,811.20 which was amended at the instance of the defendant with respect to an error in the description of the foams. The claimant issued an amended invoice dated 11 th September 2018 in the sum of $17,771.41 to reflect the suggested changes.

4

The defendant concedes that he entered into oral agreement with the claimant for 40 mattresses, 100 foams (as opposed to 150 foams as per the claimant), and 500 pillows. However, the defendant states that the claimant presented him with a VAT invoice dated 9 th July 2018 for the supply of 500 pillows and 40 mattresses for a total of $13,926.50, but that at the time the invoice was presented, only the mattresses were delivered.

5

The defendant asserts that despite the promises given by the claimant to have the order fulfilled, the claimant failed to do so, and that the claimant only managed to deliver outstanding pillows and foams almost three weeks after on 2 nd August 2018.

6

The defendant contends that having already paid the claimant for the mattresses and pillows invoiced on 9 th July 2018, he was only required to pay the claimant the total cost of 150 pieces of foam in the sum of $3,378.00 plus VAT on the amended invoice.

7

The claimant asserts that the invoice of $13,926.50 relates to a previous order which had already been delivered to the defendant and settled.

Legal Analysis
Whether the defendant owes the claimant $17,771.41
8

The resolution of this issue is strictly a matter of fact to which the court is to determine on the evidence before it. In the case of Luis Jarvis v American Eagle Airlines 1, Blenman J., as she then was, opined therein that the claimant had not seen it fit to produce sufficient evidence to corroborate his position, and concluded by dismissing the claim. The learned judge held the following:

“This is a civil case and he who asserts must prove. This is known as the burden of proof. It is the law that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.”

9

The claimant's main contention is that the payment of $13,926.50 by the defendant of an invoice dated 9 th July 2018 represented an earlier order and is irrelevant to the disputed order.

10

It is the evidence that the usual business practice between the parties entailed the defendant placing an order for goods from the claimant, and upon delivery and verification of same, the defendant would take delivery of the goods and the invoice would be settled.

11

The defendant in his witness statement states:

“In the ordinary course of my dealings with the claimant, I would usually collect an invoice from the claimant after the delivery of an order and either myself, my wife or Mr. Brian Pope, an employee of mine, would verify the items ordered, then confirm same by signing the accompanying invoice and take possession of the delivered items”.

12

The defendant's case is that he had already paid for the mattresses in the 9 th July 2018 invoice and therefore the insertion of the 40 mattresses in the amended August invoice is erroneous.

13

The court having heard the evidence is of the view that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT