Charles v Raymond

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: St. Bernard, J.A.,Lewis, C.J.,Bishop, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 13 September 1972
• Neutral Citation: LC 1972 CA 1
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1972
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 13 September 1972

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J. (Ag), Bishop, J.A. (Ag), St. Bernard, J.A.

Magistrate's Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1972

Charles

and

Raymond

C. Mason for appellant.

I. D'Auvergne for respondent.

Damages - Breach of contract for goods paid and not delivered..

St. Bernard, J.A.

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the magistrate delivered on the 28th April, 1972 in which he awarded the respondent the sum of $37.13 being the price of goods paid for and allegedly not delivered by the appellant. The facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows. On the 29 ^th February, 1972 the respondent purchased at the business premises of the appellant two cartons of milk for the price of $37.13. She received a cash bill and receipt for the price of the goods. On the cash bill was marked the word, “Firefly” and the bill was also initialled by the appellant and signed by the respondent Ada Raymond. She told the clerk who made the sale that she proposed taking the goods by the bus “Firefly” and asked that the goods remain in the shop until the bus came for them. She said that when she made that request the appellant was about two feet away and could have heard. She left in search of the bus “Firefly” but did not find it and so she went home.

2 A day or two later she gave the bill to the driver of the bus “Firefly” in order for him to take delivery of the goods from the appellant. The driver went to the appellant who refused delivery and told him to inform the respondent to come to him. The respondent went to him on the 6th of March, and spoke to him about the goods. He said he knew nothing about them. He said he gave the cash bill but knows nothing about the goods. She did not go back but went in search of a policeman who went along with her to the appellant who said that when people get goods they must take their goods and go with them.

3 The appellant gave evidence and said according to the bill the transaction did take place and that two cartons of milk were sold to the respondent. The goods were to be delivered immediately the money was paid unless the person had an account. He did not state that the woman took the goods and went away. He said nothing at all about the arrangement she said that was made within his hearing. He refused to deliver any goods. The appellant found that the goods were bought and that they were deposited with the appellant or his servants who were to deliver them to the bus “Firefly.”...