Gaskin v Bourne

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 15 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 120 of 1969
• Date: 15 February 1974

Divisional Court

Douglas, C.J.; Williams, J.

No. 120 of 1969

Gaskin

and

Bourne

Appearances:

J.M.G. Adams for the appellant.

C.W.P. Chenery for the respondent.

Public Utilities - Rates — What is fair and reasonable.

Facts: This was an appeal to the High Court by a company holding 80 percent of equity in the Barbados Telephone Company — The company filed a complaint with the Utilities Board claiming that the rates of the Telephone Company for 1974 would not be fair and reasonable and would not yield sufficient revenue to allow the holders of equity a fair return on their investment — Appeal from the decision of the Board to reduce the proposed monthly rates for business residence and PABX installations.

Held: The decision of the Board would stand.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 On February 21, 1969, the appellant who sells salt meat and other items in Suttle Street in the City, bought some pickled meat from M.E.R. Bourne & Co., a firm in which the respondent was a partner. Some days later, after he had taken delivery of the meat, it was condemned by a public health inspector and had to be dumped. He claimed from the respondent for the loss of the profit he could have made on the sale of the meat, the return of the money paid for it and the cost of dumping it. His claim was dismissed by the magistrate and he has appealed to this court.

2 Before the magistrate and before this court counsel for the appellant sought to rely on s.15 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1895 2 [B] which reads as follows –

“15. Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows:–

• (1) where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade names there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose”

3 Counsel's submission is that this is not a case in which caveat emptor is applicable that the respondent well knew that the meat was being purchased for resale to human...