Liddy v Chesebrough

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 February 1998
• Neutral Citation: AI 1998 HC 2
• Docket Number: No. 3 of 1995
• Date: 04 February 1998

High Court

Saunders, J.

No. 3 of 1995

Liddy

and

Chesebrough

Appearances:

K. Porter for the plaintiff.

Ms. J. Kentish for the defendant.

Contract - Agreement to build a stone planter — breach of agreement — Whether the plaintiff failed to complete the work agreed — Whether the plaintiff was so negligent in his construction of the planter that damage resulted therefrom — Whether the defendant was entitled to claim for damages.

Facts: The plaintiff, a builder, claimed that he built a stone planter for the defendant for which he was owed a balance of $7,144.00. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff failed to complete the job as a result of which he was forced to pay a third party $1,500.00 to complete the work. He further claimed that the defendant was negligent in his work and that it resulted in damages assessed at $13,000.00 to his plants.

Held: The plaintiff's evidence was to be preferred. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of US$5,000.00 with interest. There was no evidence to show the work was incomplete or that there had been damage.

Saunders, J.

1 This case turns purely on questions of fact. Mr. Liddy is an Anguillian Builder. He works with stone. He is the plaintiff. Mr. Chesebrough, the defendant, is an American businessman. He resides at Sea Feathers. He also spends time in the United States.

2 These two gentleman have known each other since 1998 or 1989. They were friends. On good terms with each other. Mr. Liddy and his wife would occasionally drop Mr. And Mrs. Chesebroughs to and from the airport. On one occasion Mrs. Liddy performed some personal chores for Mrs. Chesebrough when the latter was ill. In 1992 Mr. Liddy was contracted to do some stone work for Mr. Chesebrough.

3 In 1993, Mr. Liddy's services were again engaged. He was retained to build a Planter adjacent to the exterior block wall or the Chesebrough's house. A planter is made of stone. Apparently, it is an enclosure into which top soil is placed for the purpose of cultivating flower trees and other plants.

4 From the evidence, the business details surrounding this contract were somewhat unclear. Perhaps this was because of the friendship that existed between the parties. At any rate, there is now considerable dispute as to what those details were.

5 What are the areas of the dispute? Firstly, there is the contract price and the balance remaining unpaid. Mr. Liddy states that the current balance owing on the contract is $7,144.00. The Chesebroughs allege that the balance is $1,000.00. Then there is a counterclaim by the defendant. Mr. Chesebrough claims that the work was not completed; that he had to spend a further $1,500.00 to complete it. He further alleges that the Planter was so negligently constructed that goats were permitted to enter the yard and destroy over $13,000.00 worth of plants.

6 The evidence presented to me consisted of the testimony of the American couple and of Mr. Liddy. Additionally, correspondence passing between the parties and their counsel was exhibited. There is little objective evidence upon which I can reply.

7 The evidence discloses three different contract figures. I discount Mr. Liddy's pleaded figure of $16,540.00. The amount only arose after the dispute. Mr. Liddy was forced to concede that this figure was the result of his unilateral measurement and pricing of the work. The figure was only conveyed to the Chesebroughs in Novewber, 1994. It could not have been the agreed pric...