Lacoplast, S.A. v Femagra Industries Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Shanks, J.
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2000
• Court: High Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: 44 of 1997
• Date: 10 April 2000

High Court

Shanks, J.

44 of 1997

Lacoplast, S.A.

and

Femagra Industries Limited

Appearances:

Ms. Samira Musa for the plaintiff.

Mr. Rodwell Williams, S.C. for the defendant.

Contract - Breach — Defective goods — Defendant collected goods — Refusal of defendant to pay sums due and owing under the contract — Whether the defendant was entitled to avoid the contract on the grounds that the goods were unfit for the purpose for which they were bought — Finding that the defendants had failed to show that the goods were unfit for their purpose and had been rejected.

Shanks, J.

1 This action was brought to recover U.S. $25,135.00 allegedly due under seven invoices for goods sold and delivered over the period October, 1995 to July, 1996. By the time of trial only the first two of those invoices were still in issue, namely No. 2680 for $7,739 U.S. dated 9th October, 1995 and No. 2688 for $3,774 U.S. dated 24th October, 1995.

INVOICE 2680

2 Invoice 2680 is for a quantity of plastic bottles. The defendant's Managing Director (Mrs. Molina) told me that she received these bottles but that the bottles had a strong smell of paint and were therefore unfit for their purpose and that customers returned them. She said she made oral and written complaints and that she spoke to the defendant's Mr. Arturo Vielman who came to Belize from Guatemala and looked at them and accepted that they could not be used for water. He would not agree to take them back until he had returned to Guatemala but, she said, he later told her to throw away or burn the bottles. She said that there were still a large number of bottles in her warehouse and that she still had some that customers had returned. She did not know if she had them all but she still had many.

3 The plaintiff's Mr. Jorge Miralbes told me that there had indeed been a complaint and a sample of the bottles had been returned to Guatemala. The lab there had tested them and said they were fine. Unfortunately this evidence was pure hearsay and there was no written report to substantiate it. He also produced in Court a bottle which he said came from this consignment which had been found in a local market containing vinegar, but he was not able to demonstrate that this bottle came from the consignment in question. It was not in dispute that a discount had been offered in respect of the consignment for whatever reason; the defendant told me there was a written offer to accept half...