Bedier vs Classic Glass (Pty) Ltd (Civil Side No. 231 of 1999) [2013] SCSC 59 (15 March 2013)

Bedier vs Classic Glass (Pty) Ltd (Civil Side No. 231 of 1999) [2013] SCSC 59 (15 March 2013)

The defendant breached both express and implied terms of the contract by delivering a vessel and engines that were defective, unseaworthy, and not fit for purpose. The defects were due to bad workmanship and improper materials, not any act or omission by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to damages, but the quantum is reduced to reflect reasonable loss and mitigation. The plaintiff is also liable for the unpaid spare parts supplied by the defendant, which is set off against the damages awarded.

Citation
[2013] SCSC 59
Parties
Plaintiff: Louis Bedier; Defendant: Classic Glass (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Case Number
Civil Side No. 231 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff with set-off for defendant's counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Sale of Goods, Warranties, Damages, Counterclaim
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Sale of Goods Warranties Damages Counterclaim

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Bedier

Plaintiff

Classic Glass (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached express and/or implied terms of the contract regarding the sale of the vessel 'Sail Fish'.
  2. 2 Whether the defects in the vessel and engines were due to bad workmanship by the defendant or due to any act or omission by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Quantum of loss and damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached both express and implied terms of the contract by delivering a vessel and engines that were defective, unseaworthy, and not fit for purpose. The defects were due to bad workmanship and improper materials, not any act or omission by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to damages, but the quantum is reduced to reflect reasonable loss and mitigation. The plaintiff is also liable for the unpaid spare parts supplied by the defendant, which is set off against the damages awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff with set-off for defendant's counterclaim.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff Rs 627,523.09 with costs.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant Rs 24,892.00 for spare parts, set off against total damages.