Byer v Stuart et Al

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Husbands, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 26 September 1980
• Docket Number: No. 24 of 1979
• Date: 26 September 1980

Divisional Court

Husbands, J.

No. 24 of 1979

Byer

and

Stuart et al

L. Greenidge for appellant

M. King for respondent.

Contract - Sale of Goods — An appeal from a decision of a Magistrate's Court that the appellant did not have a right to sell the motor car to S, the respondent/plaintiff — The appellant and the respondent/second defendant C were parties to a contract the terms of which were that the appellant would sell a motor car to C and C was to pay the appellant in the form of labour work — The parties drew up a written contract to this effect — C took possession of the motor car and registered it in his name — The appellant subsequently took the car away and sold it to S — Whether the Magistrate's decision was against the weight of the evidence — Whether the property in the car passed after completion of labour payments — Finding that the property in the car passed from the appellant to C when the contract was made — By virtue of section 3(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, Cap. 318, this contract was a sale and by virtue of section 21, the risk passed from the appellant to C — The appellant therefore had no rights with respect to the car after the contract except those of an unpaid seller — The appellant's sole right was one of the re-sale as limited by section 47(3) and (f) of the Act — Since there was no evidence of notice being given by the appellant to C of his intention to re-sell and as the appellant did not expressly reserve a right of re-sale in the document, the appellant had no right to re-sell the car — Appeal dismissed.

Husbands, J.A.

1 This is an appeal from the learned Magistrate of District “B”.

2 The evidence disclosed the following:

3 Sometime in early August, 1976 Ed Byer the appellant/ first defendant and Charles Corbin the respondent/second defendant entered into an arrangement concerning the sale of the motor car G. 533 by the appellant to the said Charles Corbin. The terms of the said arrangement were contained in a document that was prepared and signed by the Appellant on the 19th August, 1976 and given by him to Charles Corbin.

4 The document reads as follows:–

“This is an agreement made this day, August 19th, 1976 between Mr. Ed. Byer, Acting on behalf of Mr. Carlyle O. Byer, and Mr. Herman Corbin on the sale of one Hillman Minx Car, Registration No. G. 533.

The car is priced at $700.00 to be paid in labour (Worked Out-Instalments) for Mr. Ed Byer on the construction site situated at Farm Road, Ellerton, St. George.

The car is DELIVERED UNDER THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY of Mr. Corbin, for ALL LIABILITIES to car and the possessions of other people, from this 19th day of August, 1976.

Full ownership possession of the car (vehicle) with a VALID RECEIPT of payment, WIL be issued to Mr. Corbin upon the completion of Labour Payments.

The signees:

Mr. H. Corbin, Mr. Ed Byer

Witnessed by:

Mr. L. Carter

This agreement is a legal document”.

5 The appellant stated in evidence “This was not intended to create a legal document to be produced in Court”.

6 Charles Corbin took possession of the motorcar on 7 ^th October, 1976, having registered it in his name on the 1 ^st October 1976. he later insured and repaired it to the tune of $1,105.40. He also did some work for the appellant, in pursuance of the terms set out in the document, to the value of $324.00 as stated by the Appellant and $409 as stated by him.

7 On the 16th or 17th January, 1978 the appellant took the motorcar away from Charles Corbin and retained possession of it until the 25th March, 1978. On that date he agreed orally with Anita Stuart the respondent / plaintiff for the sale of the motorcar for the sum of $700.00. Stuart paid him the sum of $700.00 and took possession of the motorcar.

8 On the 3rd April, 1978 Charles Corbin took the motor car away from Stuart who filed this action against the appellant and Charles Corbin, in which she claimed from the appellant the sum of $1 000 and costs or alternatively from Charles Corbin the return of the motor car, the sum of $300.00 and costs.

9 The learned magistrate found that the appellant did not have a right to sell the motorcar to Stuart and he therefore gave judgment as claimed for Stuart for $700.00 (the value of the car) and $300 (loss of use of the car) and $117.50 costs. He also gave judgment for Charles Corbin against the Appellant for $150.00 costs. The appellant appealed.

10 The grounds of appeal are as follows:

1

That there is no evidence to support the...