Lapon v Dobel Farming & Trading Pty Ltd, trading as Hagen Hauliers [1992] PGLawRp 592; [1992] PNGLR 215 (8 May 1992)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1992

[1992] PNGLR 215 - Jessey Lapon v Dobel Farming & Trading Pty Ltd, trading as Hagen Hauliers 

[1992] PNGLR 215

N1063

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

JESSEY LAPON

V

DOBEL FARMING & TRADING PTY LTD TRADING AS HAGEN HAULIERS

Mount Hagen

Woods J

4 March 1992

8 May 1992

CONTRACT - Breach of contract - Damages for frustration suffered, distress etc not applicable - Contra employment contracts.

DAMAGES - Frustration and distress - Nature of - Relevance to business arrangements.

Facts

Plaintiff entered into a truck hiring contract with the defendant on 3 December 1987 for a period of five (5) years. No payments were made for the hire for the whole of 1990 and the plaintiff is hereby seeking damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff also seeks K1000 for frustration suffered for the entire year of 1990. Defendant owes K20,634.63.

Held

N1>1.       Contract was breached.

N1>2.       Interest allowed at 8% from 1 January 1991.

N1>3.       Where there is a purely business arrangement, it was a matter of commercial reality to claim for the breach and make alternative arrangements. There is no liability for frustration and distress suffered out of such breach.

Cases Cited

Harding v Teperoi Timbers Pty Ltd [1988] PNGLR 128

Counsel

D Poka for the plaintiff

8 May 1992

WOODS J: The plaintiff is claiming damages for breach of a truck hiring contract entered into between himself and Dobel Farming & Trading Pty Ltd trading as Hagen Hauliers.

By a written agreement dated 3 December 1987 between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to let his truck, a Hino Prime Mover Registration No AFP 677, to the defendant, who agreed to hire the truck for a 5 year period.

For the full year of 1990, payments were not made to the plaintiff as per the agreement. The plaintiff has submitted details of the account kept by the defendant for his vehicle for the year January to December 1990, and I find no difficulty with the figures contained therein. There is no evidence to dispute those figures. The defendant has filed no appearance nor shown any interest in these proceedings.

I am, therefore, satisfied on those figures. As there was clearly a commercial arrangement, I will allow interest on that amount at 8 percent from 1 January 1991 to date.

The plaintiff is claiming a further amount of K1000 for frustration and distress at the failure to account which has led to the breach of the agreement. Counsel for the plaintiff refers to the case Harding v Teperoi Timbers Pty Ltd [1988] PNGLR 128. However, whilst his Honor awarded a nominal amount for frustration and distress in that case, one must note carefully what he said and the nature of the frustration and distress. His Honour noted on page 136 that "it is not for every breach of contract that damages can be recovered for mental distress, frustration, upset etc". He then went on and said:

"I consider that in employment contracts there cannot be any doubt that it is in the contemplation of the parties that if the employee is dismissed in breach of the contract it is foreseeable that the effect would be to cause him to suffer some degree of mental distress, frustration or upset. This is only a good commonsense conclusion."

His Honour had earlier referred to cases which were about similar personal situations, such as breach of employment or failure of holiday arrangements. However, the case before me now is a purely business arrangement for the hire of a truck. Once the plaintiff saw the problem arising, it was a matter of commercial reality to take steps to allege the breach of the agreement and claim monies owing and make fresh arrangements for the hire of the vehicle. I have been referred to no authorities where frustration and distress has been considered in such a commercial arrangement. So I am not satisfied that I should award such damages here.

Amount owing:	K20,634.63
Interest	2,234.19
	K22,868.82

ble>

I order judgement for K22,868.82.

Lawyer for the plaintiff: Kopunye Lawyers