1C.L.R. 1988 May 27 {A LOIZOU,Ρ, SAWIDES.KOURRIS, JJ) ANDREAS CHRISTODOULOU, Appellant-Plamhff, ν COSTASKAZAFANIOTIS, Respondent-Defendant (CivilAppealNo 7160) Saleofgoods—Damagesfornonacceptance—TheSale of GoodsLaw, Cap 267, section 56—Measure of such damages—Governed by section 73ofthe ContractLaw, Cap 149—Nodutycastonsellerto sellthegoodsbypublicauction 5 The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court Appealdismissedwithcosts Casesreferredto Shacolas ν MichaehdesandAnotl.er
(1967)1CLR 290; 10 Anastasiou ν Stylianou
(1974)1CLR 62 Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff againstthejudgment of the DistrictCourtof Nicosia (Kramvis, DJ ) dated the 31st March, 1986 (Action No. 10376/84) whereby the plaintiff was ordered to pay to the 15 defendant thesum of £200 - as damage for breach ofcontract Μ Charalambides, for the appellant. Ν Papaefstathiou, for the respondent. A LOIZOUΡ gavethefollowingjudgment of theCourt Onthe 23rdJune, 1984, theparties tothese proceedings entered intoan 20 oral agreement by virtue of which the appellant agreed to purchase from therespondentone-thousandokesof broad-beans 325 A. Lolzou P. Christodoulou v. KazafaiUotis
(1988)at the price of 675 mils per oke which he would take delivery of from the premises of the respondent at Peristerona village eight days from the date of the agreement. The appellant paid thereupon one-hundred pounds as down payment and the balance was tobe paid ο ιthedateofdelivery. Theappellantfailed 5 to take delivery of the g .ods atthe agreed date and failed also to pay the balance of their price. Fifteen days after the agreement was concluded, the respondent met the appellant at Peristerona village and inquired with him when he would come totake delivery of the goods. The 10 appellant assured the respondent that he would do so the following Thursday butagain he did notturn up. On the 11th August 1984, the respondent gave twenty-four hours time to the appellant to go and take delivery of the broadbeans otherwise he would sell them to a third person. The 15 appellant did nottake delivery οίthe goods within thatperiod nor until the 18th October 1984, on which date the respondent sold them toa third person at the price of 475 mils per oke which was the market price on the said date. These were the facts as accepted by the learned trial Judge on 20 the evidence adduced before him, having preferred to thatof the appellant, the testimony of the respondent and his witnesses as being reasonable andconsistentwiththetruefacts. Thereuponthe learned trialJudge dismissed the appellant's claim for the refund of the one-hundred pounds and gave judgment on the 25 counterclaim in favour of the respondent for £200 damages for breach of contract, and costs. The learned trialJudge relied for thatpurpose onthe provisions of section56 of theSale ofGoodsLaw,Cap.267 which provides: «Where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept 30 and pay for thegoods, theseller may sue himfor damages for non-acceptance». This section corresponds to section 50 subsection 1 of the English Sale of Goods Act 1893, which, however, has two more subsections that deal with the normal measure of damages for 35 non-acceptance in general and the measure of damages where there is an available market. These two subsections have been omitted from our section. We have therefore to fall back on the general methodof computingthelossdirectly andnaturally arising 326 1 C.L.R. Christodoulou v. Kazafanlotis A. Lolzou P. from the buyer' s breach, as provided by Section 73 of our Contract Law, Cap. 149 and to our Case Law to which the principlesgoverningthemeasure ofdamages incasesof contract for the saleof goods havebeen settled. 5 In the case of Shacolas v. Michaelides and Another
(1967)1 C.L.R. 290, it was held that the measure of damages for nonacceptance of goods sold, is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting in the ordinary course of events from the buyer' s breach of contract. In Spyros Anastasiou v. Apostolis 10 Stylianou
(1974)1C.L.R. 62 itwas held that the «compensation whichmustbepaidtohimshouldbemeasuredbyascertainingthe difference between the contract and the market priceon the date when payment was made, subject of course tothe limitation that the Law imposes a duty upon the plaintiff to take all reasonable 15 steps to mitigate his loss caused by the breach of contract and debars him from claiming compensation for any part of the damages which isdue tohisneglectto do so.» Itmay usefully be added here thatifthe seller retainsthe goods after thebreach,hecannotrecoverfrom thebuyeranyfurther loss 20 ifthe market falls. Thelearned trialJudge indeed wentintothisaspectofthe case and observed that though the sale of goods was effected at some unreasonable, asone mightsay,time from the date ofthe breach, there was no evidence adduced before him that there was any 25 difference inthe market price of the goods between the date that the appellant failed totakedeliveryofthegoods,thatisthedateof the breach and the date they weresoldtothethirdperson and he assessed the damages on the basisof the difference between the agreed price and the price at which they were so sold at two30 hundred pounds,beingthedamage suffered bytherespondent as a result of the breach and which he awarded to him by way of damages with hisjudgment. It was argued before us that the respondent had a duty to sell thembyauctionandalsotogivenoticetotheappellantofthedate 35 and place of such sale. We have not been able to find in the authoritiessuchadutycastonthesellerincircumstanceslikethose of the present case. Needless to say, however, that the respondents duly infonned the appellant of his intention to sell 327 A-Loizou P. Christodotdou v.Kazafanlotis
(1988)thegoodstothirdpartiesincasethelatterfailedtotakedeliveryof thegoodsinquestion withinthetimespecified forthepurpose. Foralltheabove reasonstheappeal isdismissedwithcosts. Appeal dismissedwithcosts. 328