Arnold Niranjan v Mark Lee
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Jacqueline Wilson |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2019 HC 209 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Docket Number | Claim No. CV2014-04662 |
| Date | 03 July 2019 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Before the Honourable Mme. Justice Jacqueline Wilson
Claim No. CV2014-04662
Mr. Larry Lalla Attorney at law for the First and Third Claimants
The Defendant not appearing and unrepresented
Damages — Breach of contract — Claim for loss of bargain — Finding that in the absence of any evidence of value of loss of business claimants had failed to establish an entitlement to damages for loss of profit.
This decision is made in respect of the claim by the First and Third claimants (the claimants) for damages for loss of profit. The claim for loss of profit arises in circumstances where the First Defendant (the defendant), in presenting an investment opportunity for the sale of a vessel to the claimants represented that a bare boat contract was in place under which the claimants would earn an annual return of US$324,000.00 on their investment.
The investment did not materialise and the claimants suffered financial loss. Included among the heads of damage sought by them is a claim for loss of profit in the sum of US$324,000.00.
Counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants are entitled to the sum of US$324,000.00 as damages for the “loss of bargain” suffered as a result of the defendant's breach of contract as the claimants should be put in the position that they would have been in had the defendant performed the contract by sending the subject vessel to work under the bare boat contract that was said to be in existence.
Counsel relied on the following extract from Treitel, The Law of Contract 1, at para 20–029:
“The claim for loss of bargain damages is, in principle, always available. But to make good such a claim the injured party must prove the value of his expectations. This point may be illustrated by further reference to Mc Rae v Commonwealth Disposal Commission 2 where the claimant sought damages for loss of their bargain, alleging that the value of the supposed tanker and its contents (for which they had paid 285 pounds) would have been 300 thousand pounds. The basis for quantifying damages was dismissed as “manifestly absurd” and the claimants recovered their payment of 285 pounds plus 3000 pounds spent on their fruitless salvage expedition (reliance loss).”
The legal principles on which Counsel relies are not in dispute. However, in my view, the application of those principles to the facts of this case does not give rise to the result for which Counsel contends.
In support of the claim for loss of profit the claimants rely entirely on the defendant's representation that an annual profit of USD$324,000.00 would be realised on their investment. No underlying evidence was provided by the claimants to support the level of profits asserted by the defendant. Neither was any financial information given in respect of any comparable business in the industry for the period under review.
Attached to the witness statement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial