United Enterprises Ltd v CIG Solomon Islands Ltd [1990] SBHC 50; HC-CC 166 of 1989 (10 October 1990)

HIGH COURT OS SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 166 of 1989

UNITED ENTERPRISES LTD

-v- C.I.G.

SOLOMON ISLANDS LIMITED

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Ward C.J.)

Hearing: 1 October 1990
Judgment: 10 October 1990

T. Kama for the Plaintiff
P. Tegavota for the Defendant

WARD CJ: The Plaintiff claims the cost of repairs to a Nissan patrol motor vehicle belonging to the defendant. The total cost of the repair was $12,954.20 and the defendant has paid $3500 leaving a sum of $9454.20.

The defence does not dispute the work was done but claim the price of the repair was agreed at $3500 before-hand and, having paid that sum, they deny liability for the sum now claimed.

The plaintiff's evidence was that they, as the main Nissan agents, had been servicing vehicles for the defendant. The normal procedure was to present an invoice after service and it was paid.

In November 1988, the manager of the defendant company, Mr Fox, brought in the Nissan patrol because it had a knocking in the engine. Mr Nuku, the Managing Director of the plaintiff company was asked by Mr Fox how much the repair would be and he was unwilling to give an estimate. As he pointed out, the repair would entail taking the top of the engine and he could not assess the job until that was done. However, he said Mr Fox pressed him saying he needed a figure to send to his head office in Papua New Guinea. When Mr Nuku continued to refuse to state a figure. Mr Fox suggested $3500.

As far as Mr Nuku was concerned, he had not given a quotation and the price had not been fixed. He pointed out he would not give a quotation in such a case and, in the few cases where he did give them, they were in writing. He and the second witness for the plaintiff added that Mr Fox came in a number of times during the repair and was shown the various parts that had to be replaced.

Mr Fox gave evidence that he had been told by a mechanic friend the knock was due to a bent con rod. He told Mr Nuku and asked for a quotation to send to his head office. Mr Nuku said he would need to get the engine out to see the problem but, when asked again for the cost, said the parts would be $3000 and the labour $500. Mr Fox then contacted Papua New Guinea and received a telex back authorising expenditure of $3,500. It is clear from that fax that whatever the status of the quotation, Mr Fox had mentioned it to his superiors in Papua New Guinea. He told the court that he came back and told Mr Nuku that he should complete the repair for $3500.

Thus the case depends on whether that quotation was given and the intent of the parties if it was.

I cannot accept the defendant's suggestion that this was an agreed sum. Mr Nuku is experienced in his work and would be unlikely to give such a quotation before he had advice about the state of the engine. Mr Fox said he told him the knock was a bent con rod. That, in itself, is enough to mean the engine would need to be opened and I cannot believe Mr Nuku, knowing that, would have made any prediction about the work involved. I accept on balance his account of that meeting and that the figure came from Mr Fox and was not accepted by Mr Nuku.

Whilst I accept Mr Fox must have sent that figure to Papua New Guinea, the subsequent correspondence does not support the suggestion this was a fixed quotation. The fax of 30th May 1989 queries the correctness of the costing but argues it on the basis that the work was not properly done. If it was made good, then the defendant was willing to "consider the original payment." Had they felt this was a clear agreement to do the repair for $3500, I have no doubt they would have said so.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that no fixed quotation was given. This was a normal case where the vehicle was given to the plaintiff to repair with the implied promise to pay the proper cost.

I give judgment to the plaintiff for $9,454.20 with interest at 10% and costs.

(F.G.R. WARD)
CHIEF JUSTICE