CASCO EXPORT SERVICES INC et al v LEO TRIM

:;)) SAIN"i' LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 436 of 1994 BETWEEN: -\ CA~~J EXPORT SERVICES INC. GENERAL ELECTRICAL CAPITAL CORP. Plaintiffs and LEO TRIM Defendant \"'""'1 n D. Theodore for PI iffs A. St. Claire for Defendant 1996: January 10 and 16. ,-v J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . June 17, 1994 the PIa iffs filed a writ summons th statement of cIa certa sums fendant from the sale of one Pioneer Portable Jaw Crusher with accessories to Def The Defendant entered appearance on Sept 14, 1994 and fi a fence on January 31, 1995 essential denying that t PIa iffs are entitled to the relief claimed and setting up a counterclaim to he effect that the crusher was not reasonably fit for the purpose f which it was purchased. has already been interlocutory ies and s Court gave a judgment on November 21, aining to further and better particulars. On December 6, 1995 the aintiffs took out a summons an erlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant from selling or

otherwise parting with the crusher pending action. In his affidavit in support of the summons Elmo z deponed that he has been informed and ieves De ends to sell the crusher and may do so to a f r. The Defendant did not put in an affidavit in and s Counsel did not indicate that he did not end to se : the crusher. his s'lbmissions on f of the applicat learned the Pl?intiffs submitted that the iffs fe if rusher is sold to a bona fide and t ittered away Pla iffs dwell f themselves having an empty j Counsel referred to the as conta 4 1 statement of cla that under the contract sale the crusher remains in the first Plaintiff until the has Deell .cully pa for by the De Learned Counsel for the Defendant submitt icat the Plaintiffs is surprising for their t were ecting to sue for the full purchase price of t than take proceedings for its recovery. Counsel tted that by ir pleadings they were relinquishing ownership of t I do not agree with that reasoning. Because a elects to sue the value of goods rather than take to recover it s not necessarily mean he has relinquished the to hlS ownership of the goods. In the first place he sold He nted cash in return for the goods but he wants to hims~lf if the cash is not forthcoming, so that at a subsequent e if t transaction is not fully carried out, he may not lose too if can salvage something from a sale of the goods.

fendant has not advanced any legal reason why t unct not be granted. It seems to me if the De is sett in his counterclaim that the crusher was fect tart, it might be the better thing to be to it the purposes of the t as contemplat e 2 29 the es of Court. The Pla iff claims arrears the amount $769,938.2 and the fendant has a counterc in t amount of $826, 9.30 cial damages. I think the balance of ence ctates the status quo remains and that t crusher rema t session of Defendant or the Plaintiffs until det of action. order is that:- the aintiffs' dk to pay the Court later form the view that s unct not have ed. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant whether by f, s servants, s, assigns or otherwise be restrained and an unction is granted restraining the De s servants, s, assigns or otherwise from selling or otherwise the Pioneer Portable Jaw Crusher and acces es which sa equipment forms the subject matter of t s action, termination of this action. Costs shall be in the cause. A.N.J. MATTHEW Puisne Judge

Suit No. 436 of 1994 MATTHEW J. Delivered: 16/01/96