Norma Jardine Claimant v Edgerton Ralph Mars Defendants [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 2008 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2008] ECSC J0421-2 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Date | 21 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 102 of 2005 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 102 of 2005
THOM, J: This is a claim for damages for breach of contract.
The Claimant is a citizen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines who at all material times was resident in the United Kingdom. She is a nurse by profession. The Defendant is a citizen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. He is a building Contractor.
On May 18, 2004 the Claiment and the Defendant entered into a contract for the Defendant to construct a dwelling house for the Claimant. It was agreed inter alia that the Defendant would provide the materials and labour. The contract price was $452, q160.42. The sum of$226,080.21to be paid as a down payment and the remaining sum of 2004.During the latter part of December 2004 there was a disagreement between the parties and anew contractor was hired to complete the construction of the house.
The claimant instituted these proceedings in which she alleged that the Defendant failed to construct the building in accordance with the design and there were defects in the construction of the building. She claimed inter alia damages for breach of contract or damages in negligence in the sum of$45,649.50.
The Defendant in his defence denied that he failed to construct the building in accordance with the design and that there were defects in the building. The Defendant alleged the land was too small for the design shown on the plan and the Claimant agreed to the alterations. The defendant in his counterclaim alleged that the claimant was in breach of the contract in that she stopped him from completing the construction of the building and he claimed inter alia damages for breach of contract.
The Claimant testified on her own behalf and called four witness being her husband Trevor Steadman, Deirdre Miliington-Myers, Norris Alwyn Lewis, and Edric Lewis. The Defendant testified on his own behalf and called no witnesses.
The evidence led on behalf of the Claimant is that the Claimant is the owner of a parcel of land at Belvedere in the state of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. On May 18, 2004 the Claimant and the Defendant entered into a written contract for the construction of a dwelling house on the said parcel of land. The contract provided inter alia for the construction of a dwelling house at Brighton. The house was to be constructed in accordance with the building plan dated March 8, 2004. The contract price was$452,160.42.It was agreed that one half of the contract price would be paid at the commencement of the project. It was agreed orally that the house would be completed within six (6) months. The sum of$226,080.21was duly paid to the Defendant pursuant to the agreement. There were some problems getting electricity and water to the property. This construction commenced in July 2004. The Defendant informed the Claimant that the house would be completed by December 2004.
In November 2004, the Claimant visited Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and she visited the construction site with the Defendant. She found that the house was not near completion and the building did not look like the design on the plan. There were several defects in the building being some of the walls were not properly aligned, the building did not conform to the design drawings in that the rooms were not the same size as shown on the plan, the room for the study was not included even though it was shown on the plan, the rafters were in some areas 34"-36" apart, the tie beams were not constructed as part of the foundation and some of the concrete walls were constructed without steel reinforcement.
Under cross-examination Norma Jardine admitted that she had originally agreed to build a house at Harmony Hall.The witness also stated that she had two plans. The plan approved for the land at Belvedere was not the same plan drawn for the land at Harmony Hall. The plan that was drawn for Harmony Hall was amended for the land at Belvedere. The witness denied that the Defendant discussed with her that the land at Belvedere was too small for the plan. The witness also denied that she agreed to changes to be made to the building because of the size of the land at Belvedere. She stated that the only change she requested was the addition of the electrical outlets in each room as suggested by her son. The witness also denied that she stopped the Defendant from doing further work on the building because her husband did not like the building.
Mr. Steadman agreed under cross-examination that he did not like the shape of the house. He also agreed that he wanted the house to have a shape that was to his liking. Part of the top of the house was demolished and redesigned to his liking.
The evidence on behalf of the Defendant is that on the 18th day of May, 2004 the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant to build a house at Belvedere. The Defendant agreed to the contract price and down payment as was stated by the Claimant. However, the Defendant testified that when the contract was signed there was no discussion about when the contract would be completed. The plan for the building was designed for a site at Harmony Hall. That site was not available and the Claimant decided to build at Belvedere. When an outline of the building was made it was discovered that the Harmony Hall. That site was not available and the Claimant decided to build at Belvedere. When an outline of the building was made it was discovered that the design was too large for the site at Belvedere. The Defendant testified that he discussed the alteration of the building with the Claimant and the Claimant told him to take whatever steps were necessary. It was necessary to reduce the porch by five feet. It was also necessary to change the location of one bathroom. The Claimant visited the site on about three (3) occasions while the building was being constructed and she made no complaints except that she requested four (4) electrical outlets in each room instead of two (2).
The Claimant never complained of any defects in the construction. Apart from the alterations agreed being the reduction of the porch, the shifting of a bathroom and the study had to be placed on the lower floor, the building was constructed in accordance with the design. The walls and columns were not crooked. He had no knowledge of any defects in the building. On or about December 28, 2004 the Claimant told him to stop working on the building. In January 2005 he met with the Claimant and Mr. Steadman at the site. The Claimant requested bills from him and the remaining money from the down payment. Mr. Steadman was very abusive. Later in January 2005 he observed workmen working on the building. The front and back walls of the top of the building were demolished. The roof...
To continue reading
Request your trial