Drafting-Particulars of Part 20 Claim

IN THE BOGGLE COUNTY COURT Claim No ZG3 57766

BETWEEN

URSULA TRILLO                                              Claimant/Part 20

Defendant (1st claim)

and

BOGGLE GALLERIES LIMITED                         Defendants/Part 20

Claimants(1st and 2nd

claims)

and

PETER CASSO

(Trading as PETER CASSO GALLERIES)             Part 20 Defendant/

(2nd claim)

PARTICULARS OF PART 20 CLAIM

1.                   This claim has been brought by the Claimant/ Part 20 Defendant (1 st Claim) (“Miss Trillo”) against the Defendants/ Part 20 Claimants (“Boggle”). In it Miss Trillo claims damages and interest for breach of a contract for taking proper care of all the Watercolours and Paintings delivered to it by the Claimant and would return any that were unsold in good condition, as appears from the Particulars of Claim, a copy of which is served with this Part 20 claim.

2.                      Boggle deny that they are liable to Miss Trillo on the grounds set out in their Defence, a copy of which is also served with this Part 20 claim. They have also made a Part 20 Claim against Miss Trillo for failing to deliver a 12th painting to them, which appears in their counterclaim. These Particulars of Claim set out Boggle’s Part 20 claim against the Part 20 Defendant (2nd Claim) (“Peter Casso”), on which Boggle will rely both to protect its position in respect of the 1st claim for damage to the watercolours and to obtain relief from Mr Casso in respect of the three paintings still in his possession.

3.                   By an oral sub-contract made on 2nd week of July 2003 between Mr Tommy Shan on behalf of Boggle and Peter Casso, Peter Casso agreed in the course of his business that he would take both the watercolours and three of Ursula’s pictures (namely “Boggle Marina Sunset 1”, “Boggle Marina Sunset 2” and “Hypnotic Blue Sea Breeze”) and put them in his gallery, in the terms that he would take half the commission (i.e. 25% of the sale price) if he could sell them by the end of September, at which time they would have to be returned if unsold.

4.                    It was an express, alternatively an implied, term of the agreement that Peter Casso would take all due and proper care of all the Watercolours and the paintings he has taken from Tommy, would return by the end of September any that were unsold in good condition.

5.                   Peter Casso proved unable to sell the Watercolours and any of Ursula’s pictures apart from Boggle Marina Sunset 1 for $1,400. On the 23rd September after numerous requests to do so, he left lying the watercolours in some packages against the front door, while Tommy went out for 15 minutes to get a sandwich in closing the gallery during that time. It was clear that they had been kept where damp or water had got to them and were quite badly damaged.

6.                        In breach of the above express, and/or implied terms of the agreement, Peter has

(a) failed to take proper care of the Watercolours, and caused or permitted them to become badly damaged, and then left them for Tommy against the front door in a damaged condition.

(b) failed and / or refused to deliver up to Tommy all or any of Ursula’s Paintings that remained unsold at the end of the period.

(c) failed to pay the $1050 due for the sale of “Boggle Marina Sunset 1”.

(d) unlawfully retained the remaining Ursula’s Paintings.

7.                   By reason of Peter’s breaches of contract and / or conversion, Boggle have suffered loss and damage:

PARTICULARS

(a) to the extent of their liability (if any) to Miss Ursula Trillo,

any costs they may be ordered     to pay to Miss Trillo and their

costs incurred in defending Miss Trillo’s claim                                                            XXXX

(b) of unpaid the $1,050 due for the sale of “Boggle Marina Sunset 1”                          $1,050

(c) of the value of 2 remaining paintings unlawfully kept by him @ $2,500 each            $5,000

Total:                                        XXXX

8.                   Further Boggle claim interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the sum of $XXX at the rate of 8% per year from 17th November 2003 amounting to $ (…..) at (date) and then continuing until judgment or sooner payment at the rate of $2.13 per day.

AND Boggle claim

(1)        $XXXX

(2)        Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, amounting to ($) at (date) and then continuing at a daily rate of $ 2.13.

BESS TOFFER

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

Dated etc.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.