Supreme Court
Action No. 5
15th July, 1982
Moe, C.J.

Contract to print business cards and magazines - Defendant seeking to avoid contract - Defendant liable to pay balance due under contract.

J U D G M E N T

In this matter the Plaintiff claims from the defendant $45.00 for printing 300 business cards; $520.00 as the balance due for printing 500 magazines and $48.58 agreed finance charges.

The defendant counterclaims for the return of $830.00 being the amount paid to the plaintiff in excess of the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled.

There is agreement between the parties that the printing of 300 business cards was ordered to be finished within two weeks of order and that the cost therefore of $45.00 has not been paid. The defendant denies his liability to pay on the ground that the cards were not ready by the time which he had agreed.

I accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the cards were printed about one week after the order was made by the defendant and the defendant was informed then that they were ready for delivery. The defendant did not collect the cards and he is liable to pay the plaintiff for the job done at his request.

With regard to the printing of 500 magazines there is agreement between the parties that the printing was ordered by the defendant, that a deposit of $500.00 was requested and paid, that a cheque for $1,000.00 was paid but not honoured, that $900.00 cash thereafter paid and in all 150 copies of magazine delivered.

I accepted the account of the plaintiff as to the other terms of the agreement and what transpired after payment of the deposit. The account from the defendant and his witness on these matters was unreliable and I rejected it.

Both the defendant and his witness Ray Lightburn sought to impress upon the court that there was no agreement as to what would be the price for the job. The defendant himself said there was only a preliminary discussion on 25th July, 1981. It is improbable that a business man ordering a job would not find out the cost of the job. More improbable that without knowing the cost would agree to a request for a deposit of $500.00 and further, make another payment of about $1,000.00. Secondly the defendant's explanation as to why his cheque drawn in favour of the plaintiff for $1,000.00 was dishonored and he then within two days of its being brought to his attention paid $900.00 in cash to the plaintiff was unconvincing.

There was a suggestion to the witness for the plaintiff that the defendant and Mr Lightburn together presented camera-ready preparation to the plaintiff on the 7th August and on which occasion, agreement was reached for delivery of the work within two weeks of that date. Mr Lightburn's evidence is that he was not present on the 7th August. In fact he saw camera-ready preparation about 2 to 3 weeks after the deposit of $500.00 was paid. Defendant doesn't remember if Lightburn was present on 7th August.

On the evidence I accepted I found that the parties agreed to a price of $1,920.00 for the job which was to be delivered within one month after the payment of the deposit. The job was ready for delivery by the 12th August, 1981 and the defendant was so informed. He has paid only $1,400.00 and accepted delivery of only 150 copies of the magazine. He is liable to pay the plaintiff the balance of the price of the job being $520.00.

I also found that there was agreement between the parties that there would be payment of a service charge of two percent per month on any amount remaining due after thirty days after it became due. The amount of $520.00 became due on the 12th August, 1981 when the job was ready for delivery in accordance with the contract. It is still due and the plaintiff is entitled to the service charge. $48.58 was claimed and is allowed.

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $613.58 with costs.