Ramirez v Noguera

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 30 May 1977
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 56 of 1976
• Date: 30 May 1977

Supreme Court

Malone, C.J.

Civil Action No. 56 of 1976

Ramirez

and

Noguera

Appearances:

Senator S.W. Musa for the plaintiff.

Mr. J.C. Gray for the defendant.

Before the Hon. D.E.G. Malone, Chief Justice.

Contract - Terms — Oral agreement

Facts: Defendant delivered canes to factory for plaintiff — Defendant reneged on agreement to pay plaintiff price agreed orally for canes — Part of price paid to plaintiff — Whether contract existed between plaintiff and defendant — Whether evidence as to date of agreement assisted in determining the terms of the agreement — Whether defendant indebted to plaintiff for canes supplied by plaintiff and delivered to factory by defendant

Held: Judgment for plaintiff.

1 The plaintiff in this case is a small farmer without transport for delivering canes to the factory. He was, he said, assigned for the 1975 crop season an overall quota of 300 tons of cane, and was licensed to make one delivery of canes a day. The defendant is a large cane farmer possessed of equipment of various kinds for the delivery of cut canes to the factory. His overall quota for 1975 was 6,967 tons. How frequently his licence permitted deliveries was not disclosed but it is not open to question that he was allowed far more than one trip a day.

2 According to the plaintiff, so common is the risk of uncontrolled fire in crop time that in the latter part of April, 1975, he took the precaution of entering into an agreement with the defendant for the delivery of his canes in the event of a fire. That agreement, the plaintiff said, provided that for cutting, loading and transporting burnt canes of the plaintiff, the defendant would be paid by the plaintiff $12.00 per ton and $35.00 per hour for any services required of the defendant's bulldozer. As the plaintiff was allowed only one delivery a day, it was further agreed that the defendant would deliver the burnt canes in his, the defendant's, name and after deducting the amount due for loading, cutting and transporting, and for the services of the bulldozer would repay the factory price received for the burnt canes out of the factory price received by him for an equivalent tonnage of his own canes delivered in the 1975 crop season, but that if the tonnage of the plaintiff's burnt canes delivered exceeded the plaintiff's quota of 300 tons, the amount due to the plaintiff, after making the necessary deductions, would be calculated on the basis of the factory price prevailing at the time of delivery of a tonnage of the defendant's canes equal to that excess.

3 About 14 days after making this agreement, the plaintiff's evidence is that his fields of cane were burnt by an uncontrolled fire and that from the 14th to the 18th May, 1975, (both dates inclusive) the defendant delivered to the factory 455 tons of the plaintiff's canes. Of that 455 tons payment was made in 1975 by the defendant on 73.5325 tons delivered and in July, 1976, what can only have been a part payment of $275.86 was made on 19.53 tons, so that there is outstanding the payment on 361.9375 tons of cane and the balance due on the 19.53 tons.

4 In the 1975 crop season - and this is not in dispute - the factory price paid for cut canes was $65.41 per ton. After making allowance for the amounts due to the defendant for the costs of cutting, loading and transporting 455 tons of burnt canes and for the use of his bulldozer which the plaintiff says was worked for two hours, and after taking into account the payments received, the plaintiff claims that there is now due to him from the defendant $19,115.35

5 As opposed to the foregoing, version of the agreement is the defendant's version. He contends that the agreement was not made before the fire but was made on the 12th May, 1975, after the fire had taken place and that it was an agreement whereby he, the defendant, would salvage the burnt canes, deliver them in his name and take for himself 50% of the factory price for the burnt canes. The balance of the factory price he undertook to refund to the plaintiff. The defendant denied that there was any agreement by which he was to be paid for the cutting, loading and transportation of the canes or for the services of his bulldozer, but by his defence pleaded that his bulldozer had been worked on the plaintiff's fields for a full five days and not two hours.

6 That there was an agreement is therefore not in question but there is dispute as to both the terms of the agreement and when it was made. In addition, there is dispute as to the tonnage of canes delivered under the agreement, for it is the defendant's case that the total tonnage delivered was 203.4100 tons. Of the plaintiff's 50% share of that tonnage, the defendant claims that he has credited the plaintiff with deliveries of 93,0250 tons made in his, the defendant's name. He therefore admits that 8,6800 tons have still to be credited to the plaintiff.

7 The admission that 8.6800 tons are still outstanding does not to my mind go far enough as it implies that what is owing is the factory price for that number of tons. As there is however no dispute that...