Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: The plaintiff sold his business and his stock-in-trade coupled with the business
premises to the Defendant in two separate agreements. In the first agreement, the value of the
goods was fixed with an option to effect payment by fixed monthly installments. In the second
agreement however which was in respect of the purchase of the premises, a purchase price was
agreed upon with the possibility of monthly installments at a fixed quantum/price. Subsequently
the amount for the monthly installments were reduced but still left the Defendants indebted with
significant amounts.
The Plaintiff then proceeded to file for summary Judgment since his claim was in respect of
debts owed to him in accordance with the Order 14 Rule 1 of the High Court Civil Procedure
Rule, despite the fact that the Defendants had already entered appearance. Thus the Later filed
for a leave by the court so that they could defend the action as they argued that based on the fact
that the agreement stipulated that the monthly installments were payable over a period of 5
they drafted it would be the primary evidence to see whether the contract of sale was merely a
credit sale or instead a Hire-purchase agreement.
KORANTENG-ADDOW in her further explanation of her ratio argues that a contract of Sale of
a Business did not in her opinion constitute a contract that could be categorized under the sale of
goods. She argues that the sale of a business the sale of Goodwill and that of a whole
organization, with in the present instance a sale of an interest in Land (In respect of the Business
premises.) Thus in the Learned Judges opinion, such could not be classified under goods.