Michael Anderson v Steele's Auto Supplies Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: Actie, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 October 2024
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2024] ECSC J1022-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0284
• Court: High Court (Grenada)

Between:

Michael Anderson

Claimant

and

Steele's Auto Supplies Company Limited

Defendant

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0284

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Ms. Herricia Willis for the Claimant

Mrs. Michelle Emmanuel-Steele and Ms. Ariel Agostini for the Defendant

RULING

Actie, J.

1 By claim form filed on 30 ^th May 2023, the claimant claims, among other things, damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation consequent upon the purchase of a Toyota Hiace passenger bus from the defendant company.

Brief background

2 The claimant is a bus operator and the defendant is one of the leading distributors of Toyota vehicles on the island. The claimant avers that in or around the beginning of 2019, he informed the defendant of his desire to purchase a Toyota Hiace passenger bus. The claimant states that no documentation or brochure was given to him to assist him in selecting the vehicle, but that it was represented by the defendant that a “19-seater passenger bus” was available.

3 The claimant asserts that he relied on the defendant's knowledge and expertise with regard to the seating capacity of the vehicle and agreed to buy a 19-seater Toyota Hiace Mid Roof for $132,000.00 which he took delivery on 23 ^rd July 2019.

4 The claimant states that in the beginning of 2021, he became aware that the Toyota Hiace bus that he purchased (hereafter referred to as “the vehicle”) was a 15-seater vehicle. The claimant avers that the 15-seater Toyota Hiace was selling at retail price of $100,000.00 which is $32,000.00 less than the amount he paid for the purported 19-seater bus.

5 The claimant avers that although the certificate of ownership confirms that the vehicle has a 19-person seating capacity, the Toyota Hiace launched in 2019 had a 15-seating capacity. The claimant sates that upon this realisation he immediately contacted his insurer, Beacon Insurance Co. The insurer after investigating and verifying the claimant's contention, downgraded the vehicle insurance to 15 passengers' capacity. The policy was amended, and the claimant was refunded the premium already paid.

6 The claimant contends that the lack of seating capacity would severely affect the vehicle's earning potential and his ability to service his loan payments.

Defendant's case

7 The defendant contends that the claimant has failed to establish any basis for breach of contract or misrepresentation.

8 The defendant states that at no time did it attempt to suppress or hide the features of the Toyota Hiace model which was sold to the claimant. The defendant avers that prior to the claimant's purchase, it held a launch event for the Toyota Hiace Mid Roof passenger bus, where a model was presented and made available for inspection. The defendant at the said launch event demonstrated that the model had a seating capacity for 19 passengers.

9 The defendant states that the claimant was in attendance at the launch event and had the opportunity to test drive, inspect and verify the features of the model, including its seating capacity. The defendant further states that the claimant did not query the seating capacity upon inspection of the vehicle.

10 The defendant states that it had reasonable grounds to believe and did believe that the representation made at the time of the launch as to the seating accommodation was true. The Licensing Authority authorized the model to be licensed with a seating accommodation of up to 19 passengers and was insured by Beacon Insurance for 19 passengers.

11 The defendant further avers that the downgrading by the Beacon Insurance was through no fault of the defendant. Further, the defendant asserts that the claimant is relying on literature from the internet in respect of a motor vehicle with specifications which are not applicable to the Grenada market.

Legal Analysis

Whether the defendant misrepresented the seating capacity of the vehicle to the claimant

12 Halsbury's Laws of England1 defines a misrepresentation as:

“a positive statement of fact or law, which is made or adopted by a party to a contract and is untrue. It may be made fraudulently, carelessly or innocently. Where one person (‘the representor’) makes a misrepresentation to another (‘the representee’) which has the object and result of inducing the representee to enter into a contract or other binding transaction with him, the representee may generally elect to regard the contract as rescinded.”

13 The defendant relies on the Privy Council case of Bisset v Wilkinson & Anr2. In that case, Lord Merrivale relied on dicta of Bowen LJ in Smith v Land and House Property Corpn3 wherein it is stated:

“It is often fallaciously assumed that a statement of opinion cannot involve the statement of fact. In a case where the facts are equally well known to

both parties, what one of them says to the other is frequently nothing but an expression of opinion. The statement of such opinion is, in a sense, a statement of fact about the condition of the man's own mind, but only of an irrelevant fact, for it is of no consequence what the opinion is. But if the facts are not equally well known to both sides, then a statement of opinion by one who knows the facts best involves very often a statement of a material fact, for he impliedly states that he knows facts which justify his opinion.”

14 This statement of law developed in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Mardon4, where the case of Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd5 was referenced in the following terms:

“It seems to me that Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd., properly understood, covers this particular proposition: if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another — be it advice, information or opinion — with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable. If he negligently gives unsound advice or misleading information or expresses an erroneous opinion, and thereby induces the other side to enter into a contract with him, he is liable in damages.”

15 At trial it was admitted by Mr. Nigel Hypolite, sales manager of the defendant, that he made the representation to the claimant that the Toyota Hiace Mid Roof Passenger bus was a 19 seating capacity vehicle.

16 The claimant made a down payment of $5,000.00 on 15 ^th January 2019 to secure the purchase of the vehicle which he took delivery of the bus on 23 ^rd July 2019. It is the claimant's pleaded case that between 2019 – 2021 he generally believed that the vehicle he purchased was a 19-seater and that he would not have entered into the contract had the representation not been made. The claimant asserts that the seating capacity was crucial for his business.

17 The claimant at trial did not deny his attendance at the launch but states that he did not stay until the end. The defendant's witness on the other hand states that

the claimant did participate in the demonstration and had the opportunity to assess the seating capacity

18 The claimant's two witnesses Ms. Talisha Livingston and Mr. Patrick Gidharry provided evidence in their witness statements in support of the claimant's testimony that the Toyota Hiace bus did not have 19 passengers' capacity.

19 Counsel for the defendant did not cross examine the claimant's witnesses. It was only in closing submissions that counsel for the defendant attempted through one of its witness, Mr. Nigel Hypolite, to challenge the efficacy of the sworn evidence of the claimant's two witnesses.

20 The objective of eliciting the truth...