B.v.I. Welding Enterprises Ltd v Leonard Thomas

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Bertrand, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 May 1986
• Neutral Citation: VG 1986 HC 4
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 91 of 1983
• Date: 28 May 1986

High Court

Bertrand, J.

Civil Suit No. 91 of 1983

B.V.I. Welding Enterprises Limited

and

Leonard Thomas

Appearances:

Mr. Archibald, Q.C with Mrs Creque for the plaintiff.

Mr. Webster of Todman & Co. for the defendant.

Damages - Breach of contract — Plaintiff claimed that the defendant accepted his quotation for welding and steel work on an airport extension — He alleged that the defendant failed to perform the contract and that he had incurred expenses preparing and purchasing raw material –

Held” the plaintiff was entitled to special damages

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for damages for breach of contract plus special damages of $10,688.00 in the alternative the sum of $10,688.00 for work done and materials ordered and supplied.

2 The plaintiff claimed that he entered into a contract with the defendant which was partly oral and partly written on the 6th January, 1983. He submitted a written quotation on the defendant's request for materials and labour in respect of certain work to be carried out for the Beef Island Airport extension. The owner of the project was the Government of the British Virgin Islands who contracted with the defendant to build an extension to the Beef Island Airport. Part of the work included welding and steel work which the defendant sub-contracted out. The defendant denied that he ever entered into a contract with the plaintiff for welding and steel work. He admitted he requested the plaintiff to submit a quotation for the work, but that the plaintiff did not complete his quotation and so he contracted with one Pickering to do the job.

3 The plaintiff's evidence is that the defendant came to his workshop on the 6th January, 1983, and on the second occasion he visited on that sane day, he handed to the defendant the quotation requested. He said the defendant looked at the quotation and said “Percy go ahead and get the materials and do the job, the price is o.k.” The defendant denied that he told the plaintiff to go ahead. According to the defendant=s evidence, it appeared he was only interested in the price of the job. He admitted however, that he told the plaintiff the price is O.K. Susan Forbes a witness for the plaintiff and the secretary to the plaintiff company said in evidence that there was a discussion on that same day regarding a fascia which the defendant said was required for the Beef Island Airport. She said that when the defendant read the quotation he commented on the fact that he wanted the plaintiff to supply the fascia. The plaintiff said he was not sure whether the discussion on the fascia took place on that day or some time after, but the defendant denied that it took place on that day. The defendant said it is only after discussing certain things with one Wattley, he realised that the quotation did not include the fascia. In the meantime, however, the plaintiff went ahead with the job. Susan Forbes' evidence in my view, is quite clear. She said the defendant commented on the fact that he wanted the plaintiff to supply some fascia but the plaintiff told him he was not able to quote on fascia right away and that he would look around in Puerto Rico to see what he can find. She went on to say that the defendant said he would come back later to further discuss the fascia and then told the defendant to go ahead and do the job, if the defendant's evidence is correct that it is only when discussing with Wattley that he realised the fascia was not included, I can only say that the evidence for the plaintiff regarding the acceptance of the work on the quotation as offered by the plaintiff must be the true one and on a balance of probability must be believed. The evidence for the plaintiff is that the materials were ordered and some two or three weeks later the materials arrived. The plaintiff and his witness said that the defendant visited the workshop and saw the work in progress which the defendant denied, and when the plaintiff's work was ready for fitting on the canopy at the Beef Island Airport, his workmen arrived there only to be told by the defendant that he was not accepting the work and to return the work to the plaintiff.

4 The significance of the defendant's evidence is that he said the plaintiff asked him about the job sometime after he saw the plaintiff on the 6th January, 1983, and he told him the job is his whenever he wants it, yet he said the work was an urgent one, and in cross-examination he said he told the plaintiff “agreement no longer because quotation is not complete,” that the defendant must have the price of the fascia for “you cannot give a tender to the government without the price of the fascia because the government give you item by item.” I am at a loss to understand what the defendant meant by that, Exhibit P.W, 1, seems to me to be quite plain and simple and the first paragraph reads thus:

“Please accept our quotation to supply canopy, rails and seating frames for the proposed extension of Beef Island International Airport Terminal Building.”

5 The letter goes on to list materials cost and labour for the above mentioned goods item by item. All the defendant had to do was accept or reject the letter, or if the defendant had said the price is O.K., but you must include the fascia before I can accept quotation, in the meantime you can make a start, then I would be inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the defendant, that the contract was accepted in principle. The defendant is a man of considerable experience in the business of building construction and Exhibit P.W.1. should have posed no difficulty for him. If, as the defendant has said he only looked at the price, he must have looked at each item since as counsel for the plaintiff submitted there is no total cost on Exhibit P.W.l. The evidence...