PAMELA O’GRADY Claimant
WINTER WARMERS Ltd Defendants
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
- The Defendants are and were at all material times both fuel and Hotray burners supplier, who installed ten Hotray burners in the Manor in or about August 2002 and recommended the Claimant using Winterlite solid fuel, which they could supply.
- On 2nd September 2002 at the Defendants shop premises, in order to induce the Claimant to enter into a contract with the Defendants to buy twenty tonnes of Winterlite fuel, the Defendants’ employee or agent Oliver Smart, acting on behalf of the Defendants, orally represented to the Claimant that Winterlite fuel is particularly suitable as it is slow burning, produced more heat than any other solid fuels and is recommended by Hotray Ltd for use in their burners, twenty tonnes would ‘ …see me through the winter’.
- In reliance upon and induced by this representation, the Claimant entered into a written contract dated 2nd September 2003 with the Defendants to buy twenty tonnes of Winterlite and, on 16th September 2003 paid to the Defendants the sum of $ 8400 as the purchase price and took delivery of the fuel.
- The Representation amounted to a collateral warranty, in consideration of which the Claimant entered into the contract.
- The Representation was in fact false and the Defendants were in breach of the collateral warranty in that Winterlite was neither recommended by Hotray Ltd, nor suitable for Hotray burners as it was too fast burning, nor gave off much heat, but recommended fuel was Glowworm.
- The Defendants made the Representation fraudulently in that they knew it was false, did not believe it to be true, or were reckless, not caring whether it was true or false.
PARTICULARS OF FRAUD
The Defendants knew or ought to have known that Winterlite fuel was neither slow burning nor produced more heat than any other solid fuels, nor recommended by Hotray Ltd, nor twenty tonnes sufficient through the winter.
- As a result of the matters set out above the Claimant had problems throughout the winter that the fires never be alight till in the morning, but even so they frequently went out. Further, the fires could not keep the rooms warm when the weather was cold and even the twenty tonnes in the bunker ran out in mid-February 2003, after only five months. In order to keep both the fires alight and the house warm the Claimant had to use both additional electric heaters and extra four tonnes of Glowworm. As a result the Claimant has suffered loss and damage.
PARTICULARS OF DAMAGE
(1) cost of extra four tonnes of Glowworm $1,440.
(2) cost of additional electricity use $9,200.
8. Further the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit.
AND the Claimant claims:
(2) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 to be assessed.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH