Ming v Tsai

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Shanks, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2000
• Court: High Court (Belize)
• Date: 19 April 2000
• Docket Number: 445 of 1996

High Court

Shanks, J.

445 of 1996

Ming

and

Tsai

Appearances:

Mr. E. A. Marshalleck for the plaintiff.

Mr. Wilfred Elrington, S.C. for the defendant.

Damages - Building contract — Breach — Plaintiff claimed $57, 482 for additional works allegedly requested by defendant — Finding that the plaintiff was only entitled to $16, 050 which represented a reasonable sum for the work found to have been actually requested by the defendant.

Shanks, J.

1 This is an unfortunate building dispute between two members of the Taiwanese Community in Belize. It relates to a partially completed house which the defendant agreed to buy from the plaintiff in December 1995 for US $75,000.00. The US $75,000.00 was to include the completion of the house; and the defendant also purchased two other lots at Mile 13 at the same time for $50,000.00 (total price of $125,000.00). The plaintiff claims $57,482.00 as a reasonable sum for additional works he says were requested by the defendant. The defendant says that the “additional works” were all comprised within the US $75,000.00 and he counterclaims $22,000.00 for costs of rectification which are necessary and $36,000.00 for rent which he says he has spent since May, 1996 because he was unable to move into the house. I have heard evidence, through an interpreter, from both the plaintiff and the defendant (as well as others) but I am afraid I did not feel I could rely on the evidence of either of them totally. I will first set out the chronology as far as I can and then seek to address the contentious items.

2 The chronology is as follows:–

October, 1994	Original plans drawn up; one storey house contemplated.
29 December, 1995	Written contract in Chinese between plaintiff and defendant. The contract states that to the defendant's house, which is not yet finished, the will be added one more storey, which is exactly the living room.”	Payments of US $9,500.00 and $45,000.00 made by defendant.
30 December, 1995	Date of agreement between plaintiff and Alexa Daniels, a contractor, “to complete unfinished building… at an estimated cost of $65,000.00.” Defendant says this and the later agreement with Daniels are manufactured. 3 days later plaintiff says defendant asked for additional works and alterations which are the subject of claim.
9 January, 1996	Date of agreement with Daniels to “construct an extension along with alterations … all at an estimated costs of $65,000.00.
20 May, 1996	US $35,000.00 paid by defendant.
8 June, 1996	US $15,000.00 paid by defendant.
June, 1996	Revised plans produced for building as in fact constructed for defendant.
30 June, 1996	US $5,000.00 paid by defendant.
29 August, 1996	US $15,000.00 paid by defendant (total $124,500.00).
15 September, 1996	Home handed over to defendant. Plaintiff asks payment for extras which results in a major dispute
23 October, 1996	Proceedings issued.
2 April, 1997	Statement of Claim.
1 October, 1999	Default judgment.
14 January, 2000	Judgment set aside.
17 January, 2000	Defence and Counterclaim.

3 The plaintiff's evidence was that three days after the written agreement of December, 1995 the defendant requested an extension of the upper floor beyond the agreed area of the living room and various other changes, and that he agreed to pay for the materials and labour for them. He then entered into the second contract with Mr. Daniels to carry out these works. He and defendant inspected the house together before handover and there were complaints and no claim was made until January 2000. The defendant said that the original agreement was that he would pay US $75,000.00 for a finished house done as he wanted it, and that he gave the plaintiff the details of what he wanted verbally. He was unable to move into the house in September 1996 because of the defects so that he had been forced to re ever since. As I have indicated, I had difficulty accepting either of those stories in its entirety. Further, there were real difficulties with the quantum the plaintiff's claim. In evidence, he said that he had paid for the extra items by paying Mr. Daniels a total of $22,601.00 for labour between January and July 1996, and by paying $35,989.00 for materials himself between January and September 1996 and he produced receipts for all these items. Howe there was some doubt as to whether, in fact, Mr. Daniels had ever been contracted, and it was the evidence of Mr. Mario Magana that normally Mr. Liou paid him (Magana), and not Daniels, for labour and that he (Magana) paid Daniels a small commission for introducing the work. Perhaps more significantly in relation to quantum, there was no attempt in the course of Liou's evidence to break down the amounts paid, and the individual amount claimed in the Statement of Claim appear to be based on some working (which are pp 15–26 of the plaintiffs bundle of documents) which did not feature in the evidence and were not explained to me.

4 I turn to the individual items claimed.

(a) EXTENSION TO UPPER FLOOR $41,355.00

...