Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

South Pacific Rentals Ltd v Suatele [2002] WSSC 49 (19 August 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

SOUTH PACIFIC RENTALS LTD
a duly incorporated company having its registered office at Alafua
and trading as Southpac Rentals.
Plaintiff

AND

VIVIEN LEOTA SUATELE
of Faatoia, Married Woman.
Defendant

Counsel: Ms R. Drake for the Plaintiff
Ms MV Peteru for the Defendant

Hearing: 19 August 2002
Judgment: 19 August 2002

JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE COOPER

In this case the plaintiff sues the defendant for the sum of $14,122.00 plus legal costs. This sum is made up of repair costs and loss of income arising from the damage to and loss of income resulting from a motor vehicle accident to a rental car owned by the plaintiff and rented by the defendant, together with legal costs but not including this hearing.

There is no dispute on the evidence that a rental agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. That agreement was made on the 24^th February 2001.

The defendant agreed to rent an Isuzu motor vehicle from the plaintiff for one week. Normally the rate for that particular vehicle is $160.00 per day but in this particular case the defendant received a discounted rate of $110.00 per day.

The rental agreement is in a standard form. The defendant has rented vehicles from the plaintiff a number of times in the past and this same form was used on those occasions. That rental agreement has printed conditions on the reverse side. Two of those conditions are relevant to this case. Clause 2 states –

“Said vehicle shall not be used, operated or driven –

(a) by any person younger than 23 years etc.......................”

Clause 5 states –

“Customer will pay Owner on demand all charges for..................

(f) Owner’s costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in collecting amounts of any nature due from Customer hereunder;

(g) Owner’s costs to repair collision or upset damages of said vehicle, including loss of use to be charged at the daily rates set forth in this agreement or the standard daily rate for this vehicle ordinarily charged by the owner, which ever is the greater, during the period of said vehicle is being repaired, provided, however, that if –

• (1) is operated in accordance with all the terms hereof including the obligations specified in 2(c) above. Customer’s liability for such damage will not exceed $1,500; or
  
• (2) is operated in accordance with all the terms hereof, including the obligations specified in paragraph 2(c) Customer’s liability for such damage will be waived if Customer has purchased in advance the collision damage waiver as evidenced by his initials in the space provided.”
  

The rental agreement indicates that no collision damage waiver insurance was taken out.

On the 2^nd March 2001 the motor vehicle was involved in an accident when it was driven by the defendant’s teen aged son.

The plaintiff’s Managing Director Ms Arp has given evidence that the cost of repairs amount to $5,880.00 and that the vehicle was off the road for repair for the total of 72 days during which time was unavailable for hire and there was a loss of income resulting.

On the 9^th April 2001, Ms Arp, met with the defendant and as a result of that meeting a written agreement was entered into to settle the amount owing between the plaintiff and the defendant.

That written agreement reads as follows:-

“Re: Damage Vehicle

Car parts – Isuzu Rodeo.

Total cost of repair –

Expenses - $1,400.00

Labour - $1,000.00

2 Side Windows - $1,000.00

Rear side Windows - $2,480.00

$5,880.00

plus T$100.00 per day loss of income as from 2/3/01

I, Vivien Leota Suatele agreed to pay T$5,880.00 for damage costs plus T$100/day lost of income.

............................. ...................

Vivien Leota Suatele Epifania Arp”

The only payment received by the plaintiff was the sum of $800.00 in September 2001 The plaintiff says in spite of promises to pay on the part of the defendant no further money was forthcoming. The plaintiff has been compelled to bring this claim to court. It has incurred legal costs in the process. Those costs are recoverable in terms of clause 5(f) of the rental agreement.

In her statement of defence which was filed by the defendant personally before her present counsel was assisting her, the defendant denied the existence of the rental agreement, denied that there had been an accident, denied that there was a further agreement entered into on the 9^th April 2001 - effectively putting the plaintiff to the proof on all the matters referred to in the statement of claim. In evidence today the defendant now says that she accepts liability for repairs to the vehicle but says she did not appreciate that there was this substantial amount of money for loss of income. The defendant says that she didn’t read or understand the documents but she signed. She says that in relation to the rental agreement itself and she says that in relation to the subsequent document signed on the 9^th April 2001.

Those documents are quite clear in their terms. There is no effective challenge to the fact that the vehicle was in fact off the road for the 72 day-period claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant should not now be able to resile from the clear terms of the documents that she signed. When someone enters into a written agreement they are to be taken as understanding and agreeing to the terms of that written agreement and there is nothing in the evidence, which really suggests otherwise. It is no defence for the defendant to now claim that she didn’t read or understand what she signed.

In relation to the rental agreement itself, that is a standard form document which would be well familiar to the defendant having being a party to such agreements on a number of occasions in the past and having being given the copy of the agreement with the terms clearly printed on the back. As far as the hand-written agreement dated the 9^th April is concerned, that document is clear, it is signed by the defendant and as I say, in my view is not open for the defendant now to try and resile from the clear terms of what she agreed to.

In fact where if not for the agreement dated the 9^th April 2001, the plaintiff would be entitled to claim $160.00 per day for the loss of use of the vehicle not the $100.00 that she is claiming. So by entering into this later document to settle the dispute, the defendant has received a quite significant concession.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff has proved its claim. There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the following amounts -

(i) the sum of $5,080.00 (being the balance of the repair costs originally $5,880.00 but subject to deduction of $800.00 being the amount already paid by the defendant.)

(ii) the sum of $7,200.00 for the loss of income.

(iii) it has been agreed that the plaintiff’s legal cost amount to $3,000.00, there will be judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for that amount.

So in summary the total judgment in favour of the plaintiff is for a total sum of $15,280.00 being the balance of repair costs, the loss of income from the vehicle and the legal costs.

JUSTICE COOPER