O'Neil Cruickshank Claimant v Andrea Burgin Defendant [ECSC]

JurisdictionSt Vincent and the Grenadines
JudgeBruce-Lyle, J
Judgment Date25 May 2007
Judgment citation (vLex)[2007] ECSC J0525-4
Docket NumberHIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 188 OF 2005
CourtHigh Court (Saint Vincent)
Date25 May 2007
[2007] ECSC J0525-4

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 188 OF 2005

Between:
O'Neil Cruickshank
Claimant
and
Andrea Burgin
Defendant
Bruce-Lyle, J
1

— The Claimant and the Defendant on the 8th of December 2003, entered into an agreement for the construction of the Defendant's dwelling house. The Claimant in the said agreement, agreed to provide the labour for the constmction of the said dwelling house at Questelles for the sum of $40,000. The agreement specifically excluded labour for electricals and plumbing.

2

The Defendant provided the Claimant with plans drawn by Debel Architectural and Construction Ltd, The plans referred to the upstairs portion of the home with the downstairs portion described as undeveloped. The plan therefore required that the Claimant adhere to the plans and specifications.

3

This claim is as a result of the Defendant's alleged breach of contract. The Claimant contends that the Defendant breached the contract by summarily evicting the Claimant and his workers and therefore refusing to allow them to complete the works. The Claimant further alleges that the Defendant refused to pay the balance on the contract which amounts to $10,000 E.C. In the converse the Defendant contends that the Claimant walked off the job without completing the works.

4

The issues arising for the determination by the Court are to my mind simple and amount to the following -

  • (a) Whether there was work remaining to be done and the nature and extent of such work;

  • (b) Whether there was a breach or repudiation of the contract and who was responsible;

  • (c) Whether damages ought to be awarded and the measure of such damages.

5

The house plans show a three bedroom house with a kitchen, dining room, living room and two bathrooms. The living quarters are located upstairs and the downstairs portion was vacant and empty, as per the plan. It is not in dispute that the budget for the construction was very limited —$110,166.50. This the Defendant herself admitted in her evidence. Then there was also a 7 week delay when the contractor encountered rocks where he thought there would have been soil and had to employ the use of a compressor to dig the foundation. This was at a cost of $1,500. It is not in dispute that the Claimant did not charge the Defendant any extra for the seven additional weeks that he had to pay his workmen as a result. I got the distinct impression that the Claimant bent over backwards or went out of his way to assist the Defendant, and I shall refer to this again later on in this judgment.

6

From the evidence adduced by both sides, I formed the opinion also that the whole project was plagued with problems, financial problems which affected the efficient delivery of materials and also on time payments to the Claimant by the Defendant. It is not in dispute that at one stage of the project the Defendant terminated the arrangements she had for thedelivery of materials which she had with Browne's Hardware Ltd and Alternative Hardware, and herself took charge of deliveries.

7

It seems to me from the evidence that the breach must have occurred when there was some exchange between the parties on the 26th March 2004. At that point the Claimant was owed the last installment of $10,000 under the terms of the project. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant turned up at the construction site and began to make noise about some paint water left at the site. The Claimant's workmen it is alleged were also at the site. The Defendant requested that they leave the site and that she would finish the remaining work herself.

8

According to the Claimant there was some minor works left to be finished and he informed the Defendant that he was willing to complete those minor works remaining. He, the Claimant alleges that the Defendant insisted that she would finish the remaining works herself and at this point she had the Claimant's tools strewn outside where she had put them with the explanation to the Court that she was cleaning the premises. The Claimant's point is that at this stage he had not yet handed over the house to the Defendant, and that he the Claimant had the responsibility of cleaning the premises as per the contract.

9

These pertinent areas of the Claimant's case is supported by evidence from Tafoya Glasgow and Otis Cruickshank who testified as to the Defendant's conduct which according to the Claimant amounted to the repudiation of the contract and resulting in the Claimant suffering loss and damage.

10

On the other hand the Defendant states her case as being that it was the Claimant who breached the contract by walking off the job. She further contended that the Claimant said that he was finished when in fact there was work for him to complete. Then in another turn in her defence she states that it was the workmen and not the Claimant who told her they had finished the work. There is no mention by her of any exchange between herself and the workmen and the fact that the tools were packed or strewn in the open yard.

11

At this stage I can safely say that I find the Defendant's version of events to be unreliable having regard to the preponderance of the evidence. If I were to accept what the workmen are said to have told the Defendant, it is my view and I find that as a fact that the Defendant contracted with the Claimant and not his workmen. It was therefore the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT