J.S. Espat Ltd v Urban Construction & Development Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 April 1981
• Docket Number: 410 of 1980
• Date: 28 April 1981

Supreme Court

Moe, J.

410 of 1980

J.S. Espat Ltd.

and

Urban Construction & Development Co. Ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. Dean Lindo, S.C. for the plaintiff.

Mr. Oscar Sabido, for the defendant.

Practice and procedure - Appeal against conviction — Counterclaim — Pleadings — Striking out — Contract — Agreement for the purchase of one hundred tons of steel at a price inclusive of duty — Defendant allegedly authenticated the form to allow the goods to be imported duty free — Whether the agreement was based on illegality — Finding that there was no agreement to deprive or defraud the government since the goods were at a price inclusive of duty — Application to strike out pleadings granted.

Moe, J.

1 On the 15th December, 1980 the plaintiff issued a Writ on which was indorsed the Statement of Claim. The plaintiff claimed $7,872.50 the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. Appearance for the defendant was entered on the 24th December and on the 30th December the plaintiff took out a Summons making application that the plaintiff be at liberty to sign final judgment against the defendant for the amount indorsed on the Writ.

2 On the 31st December, 1980 a Defence was filed in which the defendant admitted receiving goods but denied owing $7,872.50 (the amount claimed). He alleged there was on the part of the plaintiff a breach of the agreement under which the defendant had received the goods. That as a result of that breach the defendant suffered financial loss. In paragraph 7, which appeared under a heading “counterclaim”, he claimed damages arising out of the alleged breach of contract.

3 On the 16th January, 1981 a judge in Chambers ordered that the plaintiff be at liberty to sign final judgment against the defendant for the amount indorsed on the Writ - with the proviso that there be a stay of execution pending a summons on the counterclaim within 14 days or further order. The defendant on 29th January, 1980 took out a summons applying for leave to amend the counterclaim which was granted on the 24th February.

4 In the Defence and counterclaim filed the defendant repeated his allegations of a breach of contract and resulting financial loss. In paragraphs 7 to 11 which appear after the heading counterclaim it is set out as follows;

“COUNTERCLAIM

• 7. By way of counterclaim the defendant repeats the allegations in paragraph 6 and claims that the defendant is entitled to set off against the amount of the plaintiffs claim the sum of $10,000.00 Belize currency, being ten percentum (10%) import duty on $100,000.00 Belize currency representing the cost of 100 tons of steel and wire mesh rolls at $1,000.00 Belize currency per ton imported by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant in June, 1980 under the defendant's Development Concession for the sole use of the defendant.

• 8. The defendant purchased steel from the plaintiff subject to the agreement mentioned in paragraph 2 as follow:

  To March 31st, 1980	$19,536.40
  To May 31st, 1980	$12,112.90
  To July 31st, 1980	$17,777.80
  To August 31st, 1980	$5,472.00
  To September 4th, 1980	$10,102.50
  Total purchased	$65,001.60

• 9. Under the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant the defendant was required to purchase at current market prices inclusive of duty and the plaintiff was required to credit to the defendant's account as a refund after the defendant had purchased all the 100 tons of steel and wire mesh rolls the sum of $10,000.00 representing the ten percentum (10%) import duty on the 100 tons.

• 10. The plaintiff discontinued selling steel to the defendant on the 4th September, 1980 and has...