Commercial Law (105)
HELD:
"I should further state that the 2nd Appellant having made an undertaking to pay or return the cement failed to keep to her word. The failure amounts to a breach of bailment requiring a remedy . In the case of WAEC v. Okoroye (1997) 2 SC P. 24; WAEC v. Okoroye (1977) LPELR 3476 SC, the Apex Court held that: " ....the law relating to the liability of a bailee for breach of a bailment is founded on the principle of restitutio in intergrum. The 1st Respondent was rightly held entitled to be compensated." REV. SIKIRU ABIODUN & ANOR v. PASTOR ADEDAYO AJISAFE & ANOR(2018) LPELR-43879(CA) Per DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A. (Pp. 26-27, Paras. E-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"As the trial Court found, there was a cement transaction between the respondents and the 2nd appellant. It would appear to be in the nature of a commercial bailment.
HELD:
"Ordinarily, once a relationship is established where there is a parting with possession of one's Chattel (goods) and the receipt by another in trust for refund/payment, a bailment relationship is created.
HELD:
"Existence of the authority to act an agent is one of facts. The authority could be express or implied. Certain facts can reasonably lead to the inference that a person had the authority, as an agent, to act for the principal." MISS PROMISE MEKWUNYE v. EMIRATES AIRLINES(2019) LPELR-46553(SC) Per EKO, J.S.C. (Pp. 24-25, Paras. F-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"The question herein raised brings up the matter of agency and the principle guiding agency is already trite in law. In the case of Okwejiminor v Gbakeji (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1079) 172 Mohammed JSC defined the concept of agency thus:- "Agency is the relationship which exists or arises where one person called the agent, has the authority or capacity to create legal relations by acting on behalf of another person called the principal, whereby the latter undertakes to be answerable for the lawful acts of the former provided it was done within the scope of the former's authority, or ratified by the latter". (Underlining mine). In Bamigboye v Unilorin (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.207) 415, the Supreme Court Per Akintan JSC held thus:- "An agency relationship exists only where a person called the agent has the authority to act on behalf of another called principal". In Jallco Ltd v Owoniboys Technical Services (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.391) 534, this honourable Court held that:- "Under the doctrine of apparent or ostensible authority where a person by words or conduct represents to a third party that another has authority to act on his behalf, he may be bound by the acts of that other as if he had in fact authorized litem." MISS PROMISE MEKWUNYE v. EMIRATES AIRLINES(2019) LPELR-46553(SC)Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Pp. 78-79, Paras. B-B)
FACTS:
"Even under the common law, it is settled that a hirer cannot repossess the hired goods without an order of court." CIVIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD. V. SCOA NIGERIA LIMITED(2007) LPELR-870(SC) Per ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.(P. 36, para. B)
FACTS:
"The contention of the Respondents/Cross Appellants is that it was the Appellant/Cross Respondent that determined the Hire-Purchase Agreement by abandoning the bus at his mechanic's workshop. But the applicable law (Hire Purchase Act) does not provide for termination of the agreement by that mode. The position of the law is that once the relevant proportion of the hire purchase price had been paid, to retake possession by the owner, it must be done by a Court action. The Respondents/Cross Appellants did not do this before they sold the bus. On the authority of MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (supra) the trial Court was right to have held that they acted illegally by the sale of the bus." OLUWOLE KOLAWOLE v. LANRE ADEBODUN OLORIOKO NIGRIA LIMITED & ANOR(2015) LPELR-25005(CA) Per AKINBAMI, J.C.A. (P. 66, paras. B-F)
FACTS:
"Section 9 (1) of the Act forbids the owner from recovering possession of goods let under Hire-Purchase Agreement, after the relevant proportion of the Hire-Purchase price has been paid otherwise than by action and except as provided by Section 9 (5)." OLUWOLE KOLAWOLE v. LANRE ADEBODUN OLORIOKO NIGRIA LIMITED & ANOR(2015) LPELR-25005(CA)Per AKINBAMI, J.C.A. (Pp. 63-64, paras. G-A)
FACTS:
"Chitty on contracts general principles, volume 1, page 6 paragraph 1004 captured a situation as the one existing in this case and the general concept of agreement in the following words: Moreover, even though it is true that the existence of an agreement is in the vast majority of cases a condition for the existence of a contract not contained in a deed, this Statement ought to be treated with some caution. First, the existence of an agreement is not an issue merely of fact, to be found by a psychological investigation of the parties at the time of its alleged origin. English law takes an "objective" rather than a "subjective" view of the existence of agreement and so its starting point is the manifestation of mutual assent by two or more persons to one another "agreement is not a mental state but an act, and as an act, is a matter of inference from conduct. The parties are to be judged not by what is in their minds, but by what they have said or written or done." OLUWOLE KOLAWOLE v. LANRE ADEBODUN OLORIOKO NIGRIA LIMITED & ANOR(2015) LPELR-25005(CA) Per AKINBAMI, J.C.A. (Pp. 40-41, paras. G-D)
FACTS:
"In the case of YAKASSAI V. INCAR MOTORS (NIG) LTD (1975) N.S.C.C 284 the vehicle in controversy was seized by the owner on default of installment payments after an outright sale, the Supreme Court after a thorough consideration of the facts of the case, the addresses of learned counsel, and the principles enunciated in the case of KOFI V. MENSAH 1 WACA 76 pronounced as follows: "We are in no doubt whatsoever that the facts of this case show clearly that the vehicle was sold outright by the Defendants to the Plaintiff even before the Defendants effected the seizure which is the subject matter of this action. That being so, we think that the Respondents in the present case acted wrongly when they seized the vehicle as they did. The difference between an outright sale and a Hire-Purchase Agreement is that in the former, the property in the vehicles passes to the purchaser as soon as the contract is entered into, whereas in Hire-Purchase Agreement, the property in the vehicle still remain vested in the owner until payment is fully made. In other words, under a Hire-Purchase Agreement it is always open to the owner of a vehicle to take possession of it on failure of the hirer to pay the installments. In an outright sale, the seller's remedy lies in an action to recover the balance of payment owed by the purchaser. " I am guided by the above principle." OLUWOLE KOLAWOLE v. LANRE ADEBODUN OLORIOKO NIGRIA LIMITED & ANOR(2015) LPELR-25005(CA) Per AKINBAMI, J.C.A. (Pp. 41-42, paras. F-F)
FACTS: