Berry, Ernest et al v Taylor's Wood Productions Limited

N THE SUPRME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
I N COMMON LAW
SUIT NO. C.L. B218 of 1994
BETWEEN
A N D
ERNEST BERRY
A N D
BARBARA BERRY
TAYLOR'S WOOD PRODUCTS
LIMITED
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANT
Clarke Cousinsfor the p l a i n t i f f s
Leighton Pusey for the defendant
Heard: May 3 and 8; June 6 and November 14, 1996
The p l a i n t i f f s and the defendant contracted for the defendant to manufacture
and i n s t a l l k i t c h e n cabinets a t the p l a i n t i f f s ' premises situated a t
Apartment 4E, Manor Court, Kingston 8. There were variations by the p a r t i e s of
t h i s contract, i n r e l a t i o n t o the cost and time for completion.
According to a document headed "~stimate-Contract" and dated January 25,
1993 [Exhibit 11, the cost was f i r s t s t a t e d as $50,306.00, and delivery should
have been within four to six weeks from t h e d a t e of order. Another document,
similarly headed, and dated February 3, 1993 [Exhibit 21 provided for a t o t a l cost,
excluding G.C.T. of $57,453.80. This document made provision for a payment
schedule. Prior to the drafting of Exhibit 2, the p l a i n t i f f s had paid a deposit
of $20,000.00 which was l e s s than the amount s t i p u l a t e d by the schedule. Subsequently,
according to the female p l a i n t i f f , two amounts of $10,000.00 and
$15,188.75 were paid by her, making the t o t a l payment $45,188.75. These payments
do not appear to be i n dispute.
There is no doubt t h a t i n October, 1993,that is, eight months a f t e r
exhibit 2 came i n t o existence, the p a r t i e s were i n discussion as t o the defendant's
f a i l u r e t o perform its p a r t of the contract. On October 15, 1993, the p l a i n t i f f s
wrote t o the defendant complaining t h a t the work had not been completed within
the period promised, t h a t is s i x t o eight weeks a f t e r the f i r s t payment [see
Exhibit 51. On October 25, 1993, the defendant wrote to the male p l a i n t i f f .
In that l e t t e r [Exhibit 31, the defendant acknowledged the existence of defects