Steadman and Woodstock Equipment Ltd v Aquart and Mayan Ranchos Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 13 December 1978
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 165 of 1977
• Date: 13 December 1978

Supreme Court

Malone, C.J.

Civil Action No. 165 of 1977

Steadman and Woodstock Equipment Ltd.

and

Aquart and Mayan Ranchos Limited

Appearances:

Mr. Denys Barrow et al for the plaintiffs

Mr. D.B. Courtenay for the defendants

Before the Hon. Sir Denis Malone, Chief Justice

Damages - Conversion and detinue

Facts: Wrongful conversion and detention of plaintiffs' tractor by defendants — Tractor used for hire — Whether plaintiffs entitlement to damages for hire should be calculated for the period ending the day on which the writ was lodged, or whether the calculation should include the period after that day to judgment

Held: Court was not justified in giving damages for an amount not claimed in the writ and which was not due when the writ was issued — Judgment of Court of Appeal in Roque Ramirez v. Antonio Ahuja (1975) Civil Appeal No. 2, November 2, 1976 [B] followed.

1 Of the parties to this action, the principals are the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant who are respectively the local managers of the 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, which are two companies each owning equipment used in land clearing operations. The plaintiffs claim that the 2nd defendant having by its agent, the 1st defendant, sold and delivered to the 1st plaintiff as agent of the 2nd plaintiff, a Caterpillar D 8H tractor, wrongfully took back the tractor and despite demand made for its return has retained it. The plaintiffs' action is thus one of conversion, which seeks the return of the tractor and damages for its detention or alternatively damages for the conversion. There is also a claim for damages for trespass to the tractor. The defendants, whilst admitting that the tractor did pass into the possession of the 1st plaintiff, say that it did so by reason of an oral agreement of partnership, which was made on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, by the 1st plaintiff and is defendant respectively and not because of a sale. They aver that the agreement of partnership was later determined so that they were entitled to retake possession of the tractor as they allege that the tractor was at all material times the property of the 2nd defendant. The defendants therefore deny the alleged conversion. The defendants further allege that the plaintiffs have not accounted to them, as they should have done under the partnership agreement, for moneys coming into the plaintiffs' hands from the employment of the tractor and that the plaintiffs occasioned loss to them by removing certain parts of the mechanism of the tractor so damaging the tractor. Consequently by way of counterclaim, the defendants seek an account from the plaintiffs, the payment of expenses incurred by then in repairing the tractor and damages.

2 It is not open to question that there were discussions between the parties relating to the sale of the D 8H tractor. The first intimation that the 1st plaintiff an agent of the 2nd plaintiff might be interested in buying and the 1st defendant, as agent of the 2nd defendant, in selling the tractor took place in December, 1976, or early January, 1977. By that time the 1st defendant was settled in Belize having come here from Jamaica and was living on the ranch of the 2nd defendant in the Cayo District. A principal shareholder in the 2nd defendant's company is a Mr. Edward Drew. At that time Mr. Drew was, to use the word of the 1st defendant, “extricating” himself from Jamaica of which country he, like the 1st defendant and the 1st plaintiff, is a national and was engaged in settling himself in San Jose, Costa Rica, where he now resides. The 1st plaintiff, whose father came to Belize early in July, 1977, was also in the process of resettling himself in Belize. Much of the plaintiffs' equipment was in Miami, Florida. Like the 1st defendant who had sold out the bulk of his equipment in Jamaica between 1970 and 1971, the 1st plaintiff had also been engaged in land clearing operations in Jamaica. In fact he had known the 1st defendant there and had in 1970 bought a D 6 tractor for $6,500.00 J., from the 1st defendant. Because Mr. Drew was constantly on the move in the process of resettling himself and so too was the 1st plaintiff as he did not settle in Belize until towards the end of July, 1977, when the first tentative discussions relating to the D 8H tractor had reached the stage at which more serious discussions were necessary, it was agreed that Mr. Drew, the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant should meet in Miami, Florida. To this point there is no dispute as to the facts nor is it in dispute that a meeting did take place between the three gentlemen at the “Everglades” hotel in Miami at which a Mr. Witty, who is an American citizen and an acquaintance of the 1st plaintiff, was present. The exact date of that meeting is not known, but it would seem to have taken place either towards the end of January, 1977 or in early February of that year. Subsequent to that meeting, an agreement of sale (Ex. C.A.1), was prepared by Mr. Barry Smith, the solicitor of the 1st plaintiff in Grand Cayman, from notes (Ex. S.S. 9), supplied by the 1st plaintiff, but it was never the intention of the parties at any time that any agreement verbally reached was only to have effect if expressed in a duly executed written agreement. There is no pleading to that effect and indeed the evidence of the parties makes it clear that there was no such intention. Thus the lot plaintiff said that he requested his solicitor to draw up an agreement because he thought it good business practice to have the agreement made at the “Everglades” hotel expressed in writing, but that the contract was not made specifically subject to the execution of a written agreement. Whilst Mr. Drew said in examination in chief: “1st defendant and I had no discussion about reducing any agreement we came to with the 1st plaintiff into writing”, and in answer to the court said:

“Basically the sale of the tractor was a cash deal. We never discussed a written agreement in Miami.”

3 It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the prime purpose of the “Everglades” hotel meeting was to agree upon a price and that in fact agreement on that was reached. The agreed price was, they say, $35,000.00 U.S., and was the price agreed to be paid for the D 8H tractor and an attachment called a rake blade which can he used with that tractor. Whilst not denying that to reach agreement on the price was the prime purpose of the “Everglades” hotel meeting, Mr. Drew and the 1st defendant place the emphasis a little differently. They maintain that they had between themselves agreed in advance of the meeting at the “Everglades” hotel upon a price of $50,000.00 U.S., for the tractor alone so that the prime purpose of the meeting was to find out if the 1st plaintiff would accept that price. The price, the 1st plaintiff said, was arrived at by reference to a booklet, (Exhibit S. S. 1), he had in Mr. Witty's presence purchased in Miami and which shows the prices obtained at recent auction sales in the U.S.A. for tractors and other earth moving equipment. To ensure that the prices quoted related to the particular D 8H tractor he was interested in buying, the 1st plaintiff said that he enquired of the 1st defendant what was the aerial number of the D 8H so that he could refer to the price quoted relating to tractors similar to the D 8H and which carried a similar serial number as those would be tractors manufactured at about the same time as the D 8H. That portion of the 1st plaintiff's evidence is supported by Mr. Witty. To a limited extent it is also supported by the 1st defendant and Mr. Drew. The 1st defendant agreed that the 1st plaintiff did refer to the booklet in question and that he, the 1st defendant, did supply him with the D 8's serial number although he had no recollection of the 1st plaintiff using the serial number to arrive at a price but supposed now, having seen the booklet, that the 1st plaintiff must have done so. Mr. Drew agreed that the 1st plaintiff did produce the booklet but that he, Mr. Drew, could recall taking the booklet and throwing it on a bed as he told the 1st plaintiff that the defendants wanted $50,000.00 U.S., for the tractor. When the booklet is studied, it will be found that the average of the prices quoted for D 8H tractors with comparable serial numbers to the D 8H in question is in fact $34,000.00 U.S. Apart from the discussion as to price, Mr. Witty could not recall that anything else relating to the sale of the tractor was discussed but, having no interest himself in the tractor and having attended the meeting for a purpose unrelated to the tractor, he did not participate in the negotiations concerning the tractor, nor was he particularly interested in those negotiations. He was, however, quite positive that the 1st plaintiff did not make a first offer of $25,000.00 U.S. as the 1st defendant and Mr. Drew allege, but that he offered $34,000.00 - $34,500.00 U.S. and settled at $35,000.00 U.S., and that there was no discussion over a price of $50,000.00 U.S. The 1st plaintiff however recalls other matters being discussed. He enquired, he said, if he could have time in which to pay the full purchase price and he said that agreement was reached on a down payment of $15,000.00 U.S., to be followed within six months by the balance of $20,000.00 U.S. According to the 1st defendant, there was no discussion of the kind in his presence at the meeting at the “Everglades” hotel; but he says that he left the meeting before it ended to accompany Mrs. Aquart on a shopping expedition. Mr. Drew, however, agrees that there was mention of the $15,000.00 U.S. That, he says, came up after the 1st defendant had left the meeting and that it was he, Drew, who raised it. He says that he put it to the 1st plaintiff that to show his good faith and that his intentions were serious he should, if he wished to continue the negotiations, make a...