Supreme Court
Action No. 155 of 1978
11th April, 1983.
Alcantara, J.

Mr. G. Godfrey, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. D.R. Lindo, for the Defendant.

Contract to purchase 15 cows - Cows sold by person acting as Manager of Defendant - Whether person who effected sale has authority - Whether contract was fraudulently concluded.

J U D G M E N T

This Action concerns 15 cows. The Plaintiff, Daniel Ruiz, claims that he bought the 15 cows from Francisco Rodriguez, who was at the relevant time the Manager of the Defendant. The Defendant, Lawrence P. Lish, has an estate in Cayo where he breeds cattle. The Plaintiff's evidence is that Francisco Rodriguez told him that he had some cattle for sale and showed him a letter from the Defendant to him (Rodriguez) showing that he had authority to sell. In fact in cross-examination he said this "I asked him if he had authority, he said yes and showed me letter."

The letter has been made an Exhibit and makes interesting reading, particularly the last part. This is an extract:

"Find out the best price for cattle and sell as many as you need to. Maybe one at a time until you hear from me maybe two.

It is best to sell one or two at a time not more than needed."

It is obvious from the reading of this letter that Francisco Rodriguez had authority but it would appear a very limited one. This could have been a red light to the Plaintiff when an offer to sell 15 heads of cattle was made to him. Regardless of this he bought 15 cows from Francisco Rodriguez for $3630 and obtained a receipt from the said Rodriguez who stated in the receipt that he is responsible and authorized.

The contract of sale had some unusual features. The Plaintiff says that the cows were to be kept in the farm until he was in a position to take delivery. No date of delivery was agreed and no mention was made as to who or how the cows were going to be fed or taken care of. At the date of sale the Plaintiff was not in a position to take delivery as he had no farm.

The Defendant's case is two fold. First, that Francisco Rodriguez was neither his agent nor authorized to sell cattle and secondly that the sale of his cattle was fraudulent.

The Plaintiff never took physical delivery of the cattle. When he went to collect them Francisco Rodriguez was no longer the Manager and the Defendant did not allow the Plaintiff to take the cattle away.

The Plaintiff has given evidence but Francisco Rodriguez has not.

The Defence has not produced any witnesses. The Defendant has not gone to the witness-box. This case was adjourned to today to enable the Defence to produce a witness, Miss Audinett, to prove the question of fraud. At the last hearing, the 21st February, l983, the Court was informed that she was in Guatemala and the case was adjourned. Since then counsel for the Defence has not been able to get in touch with her and seeks a further adjournment. Counsel for the Plaintiff objects strongly. In the exercise of my discretion I have refused a further adjournment as no firm date can be fixed when the witness will become available. This case was part heard in September, l982.

In the circumstances I find I have to give judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $3630 which is what the said cattle is said to be worth. Although claimed the Court refused to allow any damages in respect of natural increment.

Judgment for $3630 and costs. Interest at the rate of 6% from today until payment.

----------OO----------