DC990

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi 295 of 2008

BETWEEN:

ANNE WAGILEN
Complainant

AND:

YOSMAI GOGO
Defendant

Madang: E Wilmot

2009: 25 June 2009

CIVIL - Oral contract – Terms of contract disputes – Court to look at intention of parties when making the agreement 

Cases Cited
List Cases Chronologically

References
List Legislation In Alphabetical Order

Counsel
Name of Lawyer, for the Complainant
Name of Lawyer, for the Defendant

2005

E Wilmotthis matter comes by way of a complainant filed on ...................... by Anne Wagilen over the defendant failing to settle the hire of her car. They agreed for the defendant to fix the car and use for a rate. After 28 days the car was repossessed the complainant is now seeking K22724.40 for breach of the oral agreement. 

Agreed Facts 

On 7 December 2007 at about 130pm the Defendant and One other Wesley Namur came to Complainants office. She was not there. They left Wesley’s number.

On returning to the office the complainant saw the message with the number. When he called Wesley asked to meet in town. When they meet Wesley asked if the defendant could hire the car. 

On Monday 11 December the defendant came to the complainant s office. They arranged to hire the car. The agreement included the cost of re-registering the car.

The defendant took the car on 12 December 2007 and registered it a receipt was given to the complainant for K515.60. He used it for two weeks.

The car was not returned in two weeks. Complainant sent a brother in law to locate the car.

On 24 December 2007 defendant came to the complainant further discussions were taken on the hire rate. Defendant further sought to purchase the car. a price was set for K8500.

Defendant stated he would buy the car by December or January. When January came the car was not purchased.

The car was removed again.

The complainant then set about invoicing the defendant for the 27 days use from 12 December 2007 to 08 January 2008. 

The first claim was dated 3rd January 2007. The second invoice was dated on 25 January 2008 and third invoice dated 1 February 2008.

I now look at the claim and cross claim.

A cross claim was raised by the defendant that due to the complainant action he lost the project. This claim is not substantiated by evidence. Irrespective of this a assertion that he was to get work from Senti forestry one can only say this..... it is an open field to apply for and win a contract with any organisation it is not a guaranteed work. You will go through the process. And you application will need to be considered on its merits. Defendant has not showed good grounds for the cross claim.

I now look at the complainant claim. There was an agreement. That is verified by both parties. I raise this question, why did the complainant act in the way she did? Only if she feels she is hard done by. 

I find that there was an agreement for a hire. The hire was set at K120 per day. 

But I also believe the defendant in saying that he was not aware of the second and third invoice. I feel that the second and third invoice was made out of spite after the defendant failed to settle the initial bill for K840.00. Because of the negative response by the defendant the bill was increased.

I find the complainant claim while claim to be unreasonable. she has not brought evidence of the car’s condition prior to the hire of the car. She has not brought evidence after the car used. I see that due to the vagueness of the claim I can only make my findings on what is ascertain from the facts.

These are:

An agreement was made a rate was set a K120. Defendant paid for the registration as agreed. That would be reduced from the hire. And invoice was given to the defendant. He failed to settle the invoice for K840. Police were brought in. Defendant refuse.

I can come to the conclusion say that defendant is to settle the initial bill given by the complainant.

I order the defendant to pay the complainant s initial invoice dated 3rd January for K840.

I further order the defendant to pay the complainants cost.

__________________________
Complainant in person
Defendant in person