Volvo Truck Corporation and Multi Tech Ghana limited have jointly been sued by a Ghanaian Haulage Company for 10 million dollars as general damages for selling defective Volvo trucks.
Volvo Truck Corporation and Multi Tech Ghana are also being asked to pay one million six hundred and seventy-five thousand, one hundred and fifty-six point three cents (1,675,156.03) as actual income loss.
The Plaintiff, JF-K Limited, in a suit filed at an Accra Fast Track Court said in 2007, it imported 15 Volvo Trucks from Volvo Truck Corporation through their local representative Multi Tech Ghana Limited to haul Manganese and Limestone. Upon the arrival of the trucks, they were put into operation but they were found to be defective and defendant had to order Plaintiff to cease operations for the defects to be rectified on the trucks in an email letter dated 5th May 2008.
The Plaintiff was also at a point in time ordered by Volvo Trucks and Multi Tech Ghana limited to decrease the load of the vehicle until the defects were rectified. All the parties, according to Plaintiff, met in Accra and drew up an action plan to enable the Defendants rectify the defects in order for the plaintiff to re-commence operations.
JF-K Limited says the implementation of the action plan was delayed and they protested via email messages on the 19th and 20th November 2008 and a letter in December 2008 against the delay in the implementation of the action plan.
According to Plaintiff, an email message dated 20th of November from Katmerciler builders of the trailer of the truck acknowledged the delay in implementing the action plan.
Plaintiff also claims that as result of the defects and cessation of operation and the delay in complying with the action plan, it has incurred huge loses both financial and contractual and suffered other hardships and injuries, etc.
JF-K Limited claims it engaged the services of a valuer who assessed the company�s actual loss of income as a result of the defects and cessation of operations of the trucks, copies of which were sent to the defendants through plaintiff solicitors in a letter dated the 6th of August 2010.
But the Defendants on 1st September 2010 wrote back to the Plaintiff�s lawyers and stated they were not liable to any losses suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants warranty.
However, Plaintiff says it not aware of any warranty from Defendants and that even if any warranty exists; it has nothing to do with the loss they (plaintiff) suffered.
Source: The Publisher/Ghana
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |