Boysie Woolcock v William Hogg
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Williams J.(Ag.). |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2002 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2002] 7 JJC 2602 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Docket Number | SUIT NO. C.L. Wl100/98. |
| Date | 26 July 2002 |
CONTRACT - Breach of contract - Claim for specific performance of agreement for sale - Inordinate delay in completing purchase - Damages for delayed completion - Whether total failure of consideration
The plaintiff and the defendant are two elderly gentlemen, the latter seemingly the older of the two.
At one time they enjoyed a good relationship and the plaintiff agreed to purchase and "the defendant agreed to sell a lot of land described as lot 35 Pitkelleney in the parish of Westmoreland in June 1986. There is no dispute about this initial agreement. It is however what followed on this agreement about the acquisition of the other lots that eventually led to a deterioration in their relationship and to this matter being before the Court.
In April of 1998 the plaintiff issued a writ of summons claiming damages for breach of contract partly in writing and part performance of sale of land by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs claim against the defendant as finally settled in an amended statement of claim is inter alia as follows:-
-
1) Specific performance of the contract for sale Of premises known as lot 80 part of Pitkelleney in the parish of Westmoreland of alternatively.
-
2) That there being a total failure of consideration The plaintiff be refunded the sum of $1,064,000.00 paid for the purchase of the said lot 80 with interest thereon. Damages for breach of contract.
The defendant counter claims that there was an inordinate delay by the plaintiff in completing the purchase and as a result he was subjected to great inconvenience trouble and expense and suffered loss damages. He is seeking damages for delayed completion.
In June 1986, the plaintiff paid a deposit of $5,000.00 towards the initial agreement to purchase lot 35 and alleged the agreed purchase price was Eighteen Thousand Dollars exclusive of costs. After discussions, final cost was agreed at Thirty Thousand1 Dollas which was duly paid and a receipt issued. However the plaintiff has since mislaid this receipt.
Subsequently there were discussions about the purchase of another lot - lot no 104 which the plaintiff stated he was to|d would cost $40,000.00 plus cost and expenses. The receipt he was issued upon payment of this amount was duly exhibited.
In evidence the defendant claimed there was an error on the receipt which should have said the payment was to be in united States dollars and not in Jamaican dollars as the receipt clearly stated. He also said under oath the actual price was US$50,000.00.
Although in his pleadings in his defence he acknowledged receipt of a sum of $70,000.00 in two (2) installments towards the purchase price for lot 104 in exchange for lot 35, under oath he categorically denied receiving this money for this reason.
He agrees that he received $40,000.00 as an advance payment on lot 104.
There was a sale agreement drafted and agreed once again exhibiting the sale price clearly as JA$40,000.00.
The plaintiff was put in possession and sometimes after he claimed: he was offered lot 80 in exchange for 35 as lot 80 was directly adjacent to lot 104 where he had began to do some construction. This lot 80 was bigger than lot 35 so it was agreed that he would pay an additional amount for the difference in acreage.
The defendant denied that any such agreement took place. He contended the exchange involved lot 35 for lot 104. He also stated under oath that he never saw the plaintiff for sometime after that and the purchase of lot 104 was never properly completed.
The plaintiff however, claimed that he was put in possession of lot 80 which he cleared, had trees planted on it, spread marl and top soil on it, and built a shed and dry pack wall on it. He was placed on the tax roll for it and proceeded to pay the relevant taxes.
He further claimed that in 1991 after continuous request for the title for his lots he was given a diagram which had his lots 80 an 104 clearly outlined. He said the defendant gave him wrjh clear instructions to take care of it. This diagram was exhibited.
The defendant denied giving him any diagram and maintained there was no agreement involving lot 80.
Finally, in 1997, the plaintiff stated he was told the titles were ready and the final cost was One Million, One Hundred and Thirty-six Thousand Dollars being the balance on lot 104 and the remainder for lot 80. The plaintiff said he expressed his inability to pay this amount and was encouraged by the defendant to sell part of lot 80 to assist in paying for it.
An interested purchaser is Mrs. Claudette Yvonne Peters was found and she entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and paid him One Million, Seven Hundred Dollars for it She commenced building on the land but was forced to stop when the defendant visited the property and spoke to her workmen.
The plaintiff exhibited a receipt which he claimed was issued to him upon his paying the balance required to cover the costs for lot 140 and purchase price for lot 80.
He however contended the receipt reflected the entire amounts he had paid to the defendant, One Million One Hundred and Seventy-five Thousand Dollars.
The defendant challenged this evidence of the plaintiff. He insisted there was no agreement about lot 80 and he was never fully paid for lot 104. The receipt was issued to "help his friend" because of the problems he faced when Mrs. Parsons confronted him about selling lands she had learned he did not own. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff had asked him to make the receipt with lot 80 on it because he plaintiff was going "to bring money to pay for it".
The plaintiff expressed surprise at the fact that the defendant had informed Mrs. Parsons that there had been no agreement concerning the sale of lot 80. He was forced to pay back to Mrs. Parsons the money he had received from her and he claimed to have learnt subsequently that the defendant sold her the land.
Mrs. Parsons gave evidence on behalf of the defence and admits to purchasing the land from the defendant after he claimed the plaintiff could not sell her as he had no interest in it. She gave evidence of a meeting between the two gentlemen and herself which was confusing and where anyone seemed to have been angry. She claimed the plaintiff insisted there was an agreement about his purchasing the lots 104 and 80 which the defendant flatly denied. Eventually the plaintiff she claimed expressed no further interest in lot 80 and handed her a cheque of US$30,000.00 which she gave to the defendant. The understanding arrived at was that she would purchase the property, she was issued a receipt. Subsequently the plaintiff repaid her the remaining amount on what she had paid him which she delivered to the defendant to complete her payment for the portion of lot 80.
As a result of his failure to complete the sale to him of lot 80, the plaintiff contended he spoke to the defendant with a view to getting back his money. He was eventually given a cheque for $182,000.00 with a promise by the defendant to look into the matter.
It is significant to note that in his evidence the defendant denied receiving any further sums for payment towards lot 104. In his defence as pleaded, he acknowledged receiving from the plaintiff the sum of One Million, One Hundred Thousand Dollars being the balance of the purchase price for lot 104 and indeed the basis of his counter claim was for delayed completion of the purchase of lot 104. Under oath the defendant now...
To continue reading
Request your trial