United Distributors v Arnaldo Isaiah Reyes
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Nabie J. |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 2024 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM No. 306 of 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
CLAIM No. 306 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE
Rene Montero for the Claimant
Arnaldo Isaiah Reyes, the Defendant in person
This is a claim for recovery of a sum of money owed by means of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favor of the claimant.
Judgment is for the claimant in the sum of $211,237.62 with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from the 1 st September 2020 until today's date.
The claimant filed the claim form and statement of claim on 9 th May 2022 as Anil Hotchandani doing business as United Distributors Limited against Arnold Isaiah Reyes.
The defence was filed on 23rd June 2022.
The claimant thereafter filed an amended claim form and amended statement of claim on 11 th August 2022. The proceedings were amended to name the claimant as ‘United Distributors Limited’ and included at paragraph 3 in the amended statement of claim the following:
“The Defendant ordered and received a large number of products from the Claimant and has refused and/or failed to pay for those products despite repeated request for him to do so. It was mutually agreed between the parties that the total sum owing by the Defendant to the Claimant as of August 2020 amounted to $220,740.62. The Defendant further agreed to execute a promissory note in favor of the Claimant and the Claimant agreed with the Defendant to take the promissory note as payment.
This matter came up for case management on 27 th March 2023 and standard disclosure was ordered.
On the 29 th May 2023 this matter came up for report and the court ordered the filing and exchange of witness statements and objections thereto, as well as the filing of a joint pre-trial memorandum.
The claimant filed witness statements by Anil Hotchandani, Lalit Kumar and Marcel Cardona on 23 rd June 2023.
No witness statements were filed by the defendant. The defendant is self represented and filed his own defence.
The issues identified in the joint Pre-Trial Memorandum are as follows:
-
(i) Whether the promissory note is payable by the defendant to the claimant.
-
(ii) Whether the defendant signed the promissory note under duress.
-
(iii) What is the sum, if any, owed by the defendant to the claimant.
The trial of this matter took place on 21 st November 2023. All the witnesses for the claimant were able to give evidence and was cross examined by the defendant. The defendant having not filed any witness statements was therefore unable to present any evidence at trial.
The claimant filed written closing submissions on 14 th December 2023 and the defendant filed written closing submissions on 13 th December 2023.
The claimant is a limited liability company incorporated under Chapter 250 of the Substantive Laws of Belize with its registered office situated at No. 16A Clarke Street, Orange Walk District, Belize. The defendant is a businessman who resides at Gibnut Street, Carmelita Village, Orange Walk District, Belize.
On or about March 2018, the claimant and the defendant started doing business when the defendant would buy goods and products from the claimant. Thereafter verbally it was agreed between the parties for the defendant to take goods on consignment with payments to be made by various means, bank deposits or cash or cheques.
This arrangement continued from around March 2018 to March 2020. The defendant would take goods on a weekly basis or more often. Over time, the defendant's debt to the claimant was increasing with the occurrence of bounced cheques and non—payment of goods.
Thereafter, the defendant made some payments on the outstanding money owed, at the same time he continued to take goods and supplies from the claimant.
Due to the outstanding monies owed the defendant signed a promissory note dated 1 st August, 2020 and thereby agreed to pay $220,740.62 to the claimant. The said promissory note expressly provided that the defendant would pay a fixed monthly sum of $3,600.00 until the loan was paid in full.
The promissory note contained the following clauses relevant to this matter -:
“In the event of a default in payment of the principal sum or any interest due hereunder upon acceleration, redemption or maturity, the overdue principal and interest shall bear interest at the rate stated above plus an additional one and a half percent (1.5%) per month on the overdue amount which shall accrue from the date of such default to the date payment of such principal and interest has been made, Interest on any overdue principal payment and/or interest shall be payable on demand.
Maker hereby undertake to meet all legal and other costs associated with the establishment of the loan, and the maker shall be responsible for all collection costs, legal expenses, or attorneys fees expended in defending, protecting or safeguarding the Holder's rights or interest in the Government taxes, and any other liabilities or obligations incurred by Holder as a consequence of the Holder's entry into this Note.”
The defendant denies that he owes the sum of $220,740.62. He contends that he was forced to sign the promissory note. That is the gist of the defence. The defendant has not complied with the terms of the agreement and never made any monthly payments.
It is undisputed that the promissory note was signed by the defendant in favor of the claimant.
The promissory note was exhibited to the witness statement of Anil Hotchandani. The terms of the said instrument are clear and unequivocal. As the claimant contends in his submission—
“As such, the promissory note being an unconditional promise in writing by the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of $220,740.62 on demand and being indorsed by the Defendant is a valid note according to the Act.
Promissory Notes are governed by the Bills of Exchange Act. The sections 85 and 90 state as follows:
“85.–(1) A promissory note is an unconditional...
To continue reading
Request your trial