Blackman v Electrical Sales and Service Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Williams, J.,Worrell, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1975
• Docket Number: No. 56 of 1975
• Date: 14 November 1975

Divisional Court

Williams, J.; Worrell, J. (Ag.)

No. 56 of 1975

Blackman

and

Electrical Sales and Service Ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. Louis Tull for the appellant

Mr. C. L. Bolden for the respondent

Debt - Sum due for repairs.

Facts: An appeal against a decision in the High Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent brought an action for a sum due for repairs to a product bought by the defendant/appellant — The appellant claimed a guarantee and refused to pay for repairs — The appellant alleged that an oral guarantee of 5 years had been given by the salesman — The salesman gave no evidence as to what transpired — Whether the magistrate was correct in holding that no oral guarantee was given on the basis of a vague reference by the salesman to the usual practice.

Held: That the appeal would be allowed and a new trial ordered — The situation must be judged according to what transpired.

JUDGMENT:

1 This is an appeal by Louis Blackman from the decision the Magistrate at District “A” under which judgment was entered against him for $428.91 and $80.00 costs. Judgment was given in favour of the respondent company whose salesman Solomon Hugue sold the appellant a water cooler in November, 1971. The respondent company carried out repairs to the water cooler some 14 months later and subsequently tendered a bill for $428.91 which the appellant maintained he was under no obligation to pay.

2 Before the magistrate he testified that the salesman gave him a written guarantee on the water cooler for 5 years and that he actually underlined certain words on the document Exhibit “A” before giving it to the appellant. He went on to say that Mr. Hugue told him that as long as it broke down and it was no fault of his, it would be repaired at no cost to him.

3 Mr. Hugue denied that he gave the appellant the document Exhibit “A”, or that he underlined any lines on it.

4...