Whyte v Martin

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Luisa J.
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1970
• Neutral Citation: AG 1970 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 1 of 1967
• Date: 06 May 1970

High Court of Justice

Louisy, J.

No. 1 of 1967

Whyte

and

Martin

Appearances:

Miss B. Lake for the plaintiff

WATT for the defendant

Contract - Breach — Damages. Facts: Evidence revealed that there was an agreement for the plaintiff to build a house for the defendant for $2,000. There was no clear agreement on completion date. The plaintiff was owed a balance of $1,062. There was a dispute and the defendant completed the house at a cost of $500. Held: There was no breach of contract, since there was no deadline for completion. There was no complete contract. The matter should be settled on the basis of quantum meruit. Final judgment for the plaintiff of $562.00

Luisa J.

1 The plaintiff claims from the defendant the sum of $1062,00 for breach of contract. The particulars of the statement of claim read as follows:

• “1. On the 11th day of April, 1966, the defendant and the plaintiff agreed that the plaintiff would construct a house 18ft. x 32ft. partly of wood and partly of concrete for the sum of $2,000.00, the defendant providing all materials and the plaintiff providing all labour.

• 2. The plaintiff commenced the work on the 11th April, 1966 and by the 10th September, 1966 had sufficiently completed the work. There remained to be done the following:

  • (a) fitting pares of glass in 14 frames;

  • (b) fitting glass panes in 2 doors

  • (c) putting galvanize on roof of kitchen.;

  • (d) sealing the roof of the kitchen;

  • (e) hanging 2 doors which were already built..,

• 3. On the 3rd day of December, 1966 the defendant in breach of her agreement with the plaintiff forbade the plaintiff to go upon the site or to complete the work.

• 4. At the time of the breach aforesaid the defendant had paid the plaintiff $938.00 for his services leaving a balance of $1062.00 which said sum or any part thereof the defendant has refused to pay the plaintiff.”

2 The defendant's defence is as follows:

• “(1) The defendant herein denies that there is a breach of contract on her part or at all.

• (2) The defendant agrees that plaintiff contracted to construct a house for her as alleged in paragraph (1) of the plaintiff's claim but denies that plaintiff contracted to do so for a sum of $2,000 00.

• (3) On or about the 2nd day of March, 1966 the plaintiff contracted to build a house 18ft x 32 ft on the principle of “working to materials” which said materials amounted to $1500.00 the said house to be delivered in August, 1966. Plaintiff failed to specify the price of the said construction, in spite of repeated requests by the defendant.

• (4) The defendant denies that the house was substantially completed on the 10th September, 1966 and further states that the work done on the building was sloppy, haphazard and unworkmanlike.

• (5) The defendant denies that she forbade plaintiff to go upon the site on the 3rd December, 1966 or at all and states that the plaintiff failed to do any work on the said building from early September until 19th December, 1966 when the plaintiff turned over the key to defendant.

• (6) The defendant continually begged the plaintiff to complete the house on or before the 31st August, 1966, as defendant had been given notice to quit the premises on which she lived.

• (‘7) The defendant took possession of her house on or about the 14th November, 1966, and has made the said house habitable on her own.

• (8) The defendant paid plaintiff on a weekly basis such sums as requested by plaintiff amounting to $1,343.00.

COUNTER CLAIM

3 And the Defendant claims:–

• (1) The sum of $540.00 being the amount necessary to complete the said house.

• (2) The sum of $300.00 for materials removed from defendant's premises and unlawfully detained.

• (3) The defendant claims the costs of this action.

4 The plaintiff's case is that he is a sub-contractor and carpenter. He was building a house at the point when the defendant on 11th April, 1966 requested him to build a house for the 18 feet x 32 feet out of wood and concrete blocks. The agreement was that the defendant would pay $2,000.00 for the plaintiff's labour, the defendant paid for the materials and the plaintiff collected same. There was no agreement as to how the $2,000.00 would be paid, the defendant paid according to what she had. He had no agreement as to when the work would be completed. The plaintiff states he started to work on the house some time after Good Friday in 1966. At a certain stage of the construction when the house was near completion the defendant came to him and demanded the keys of the house, the plaintiff refused to deliver them saying that the house was still under construction. Some time after this the defendant went to the plaintiff with a police officer and spoke to him. The plaintiff consulted his Solicitor and later went to the defendant offered to complete the house; she refused to let him do so, and he gave the defendant the keys to the house. The plaintiff states that the defendant agreed with him that he could leave the work sometimes to do other jobs.

5 There were 5 items of work to complete the house

• (a) fitting pares of glass for sash. windows 7

• (b) fitting glass panes in 2 doors;

• (c) putting galvanize on roof of kitchen;

• (d) sealing the roof of the kitchen;

• (e)hanging 2 doors.

6 The plaintiff states it would cost $50 - $60 to complete. During the time the plaintiff was working on the house he stopped about 3 times and worked elsewhere to give the defendant time, he says, to accumulate more money. When the plaintiff stopped working, he...