Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Hizoke v Puko [2017] PGDC 16; DC3022 (8 September 2017)

DC3022
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS GRADE FIVE CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION]

GFCi: 04of 2017

BETWEEN

KULEX SITO HIZOKE

Complainant

AND

ROGER PUKO

Defendant

Goroka: R. APPA, PM

2017: August 10
September 08

CIVIL –

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:
Nil

08^th September, 2017

-2-

DECISIONOF THE COURT

R. APPA, PM: This is a case on invalidating a contract of sale of a motor vehicle (rescission). The vehicle was described as Mazda Bravo Reg. LAK-803 owned by the defendant.

2. The facts presented were that both parties had negotiated the deal for sometimes and then followed by offer and acceptance and concluded with consideration or price.

3. The vehicle was sold for K10, 000.00 which was accepted by the complainant and payment was made on installments and upon completion the vehicle was handed over with signing of Statutory Declarations on 1^st September 2014.

4. After some 2½ years the vehicle was found to be defective and the complainant came to court to rescind the contract of sale, to return the vehicle and get back his money. The complainant claimed that the vehicle broke down after two weeks of taking delivery.

5. The complainant further argued that he was forced into buying the vehicle and raised the issue of duress and undue influence. He claimed that he did not know the condition of the vehicle before buying it.

6. The defendant raised equal arguments that the transaction was completed. That they had satisfied the requirement under the Goods Act and therefore it could not be rescinded. The vehicle was in running condition when sold. He further claimed that it was the complainant who showed interest to buy his vehicle and there was no duress or undue influence involved.

7. This is a difficult case to decide because the contract of sale was concluded in 2014 and its now over 2½ years. If the complainant realized the vehicle was defective he should have complained to the defendant quickly to rescind the contract. He did at one time asked the defendant for some money to fix the vehicle which the defendant gave him K300.00 but that was not enough to repudiate the contract of sale.

8. Section 3 of the Goods Act sets out requirements to complete a contract of sale of goods. Offer, acceptance and consideration/ price.

9. Section 27 sets out performance of contract. Seller delivers it, buyer accept it and consideration/ payments.

10. The circumstance of the present case fits into those provisions.

11. However, Section 34 talks about the right to examine goods, to inspect quality of goods before buying it.

12. In the present case, though the sale was complete, it appeared that both parties were in a rush. They did not allow a mechanic to inspect the condition of the vehicle, no test driving, no warranty given.

-3-

13. I am unable to rescind the contract of sale but to be fair to the complainant who may not have enjoyed from the deal and also because of section 34 of the Goods Act, I have decided to strike on balance and order the defendant to pay complainant K3, 500.00 to help him to fix the vehicle.

Orders:

The defendant is adjudged to pay complainant K3, 500.00 payable within one month from today.

Dated this 08^th September, 2017 at Goroka

Counsels:
Nil