Scheerdehs Van Kerchove United Company v Fintan Doyle & Fintan Doyle Const

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 30 July 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 1745
• Date: 30 July 1986
• Court: High Court

1986 WJSC-HC 1745

1984 no 485

SCHEERDEHS VAN KERCHOVE UNITED CO v FINTAN DOYLE & FINTAN DOYLE CONST

SCHEERDERS VAN KERCHOVE UNITED COMPANY

.V.

FINTAN DOYLE AND FINTAN DOYLE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Synopsis:

AGENCY

Agent

Contract - Formation - Trader - Company formed by trader - Defendant trader bought composition roofing slates from plaintiff manufacturer - Goods invoiced to trader and prices paid by him from his bank account - Trader formed defendant company and continued to buy goods from plaintiff using trader's stationery - Apart from last three consignments all deliveries were invoiced to trader - Trader contended that he acted as agent for his company - Action by plaintiff for prices of goods supplied to trader and to defendant company - Held that plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the defendant trader for the prices of all goods supplied, except the last three consignments - Held that judgment for the plaintiff should be entered against the defendant company for the prices of the last three consignments - (1984/485 - Barron J. - 30/7/86)

|Scheerders Van Kerchove v. Doyle|

PRACTICE

Judgment

Set-off - Pleadings - Delay - Sale of goods - Amended defence allowed at hearing of action for price of goods sold and delivered - Particulars of alleged defects in goods given with amended defence - Judgment entered against defendant for price claimed by plaintiff - Trial of issue of set-off adjourned to enable parties to adduce evidence relating to alleged defective condition of the goods - (1984/485 - Barron J. - 30/7/86)

|Scheerders Van Kerchove v. Doyle|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barron delivered the 30th day of July 1986.

2 The Plaintiff company is a manufacturer of a composition slate used for roofing purposes in the building industry. The Defendant was engaged in this industry in England in the year 1978. He was keen to do business with the Plaintiff and in that year commenced to buy their product for resale in this jurisdiction. The slates appeared to sell well and between November 1978 and January 1983 the value of the goods sold by the Plaintiff amounted to approximately £1.3 million representing approximately 5 million slates.

3 In 1980 there was a complaint about the quality of the slates. In 1981 there were further complaints and in 1982 and 1983 this number increased to about 40 in all.

4 Towards the end of 1982 the account between the parties showed a considerable sum being owed to the Plaintiff. The last consignments were delivered in January 1983. At that date the debt owing to the Plaintiff was the sum of £52,865.

5 No further slates were delivered after that date because of non payment. The Plaintiff sought payment from the first named Defendant who maintained that the liability was that of the second named Defendant. On behalf of the second named Defendant he also sought to set-off against its liability sums which he maintained were being claimed from the company by reason of genuine complaints arising from defects in the slates. The attitude of the Plaintiff was that there was nothing wrong with the slates, but that they were being fitted without under-roof ventilation contrary to their instructions. Nevertheless, they were fully prepared to make good all defects and offered the Defendant a complete indemnity if he paid what was owing. This offer was refused.

6 Proceedings were issued on the 15th March 1984 against the first named Defendant claiming the sum of £52,865. These proceedings were abandoned on the 8th July 1985 to enable the Plaintiff to claim an additional 20% of the price on foot of its standard terms and conditions. This claim was not pursued at the hearing. In addition on this date the second named Defendant was joined as a party and effectively the claim for...