top of page

2 June 2016

START DATE

END DATE

4-Jul-16

JOSHUA BATES TRADING BERMUDA vs BRIAN HUXLEY

COURT:

LAW:

JUDGE(S):

CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:

DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:

Supreme Court of Bermuda

Supply of Services Act (Implied Terms) Act 2003 Sale of Goods Act 1978

Charles-Etta Simmons

Mr K. White (CH&W)

B. Huxley Respondent in person

FACTS OF THE CASE:

summary of The Respondent ordered five kitchen appliances from the Appellant. A dispute arose over one appliance not matching the order. The Appellant sued for the balance owed and the Respondent counterclaimed for the cost of the incorrect good

SUMMARY:

Whether the transaction was a supply of services or a sale of goods whether the Magistrate applied the correct law the facts around the order and delivery of the disputed appliance

OUTCOMES:

Judgment entered for the Appellant Magistrate?s judgment and award set aside Appellant awarded the original claim amount plus interest and unpaid costs

RULED IN FAVOUR OF:

Plaintiff/Claimant (JOSHUA BATES TRADING BERMUDA)

PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT

DEFENDANT:

DURATION (DAYS):

ISSUES:

RELEVANCE:

RULING:

RULING TYPE:

CASES CITED:

Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips

Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.

Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.

How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.

Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.

See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.

Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.

Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.

See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.

Download Case Summary: 

pdf.png
AI Chatbox Anchor

Explore:

EPHESIANS 6:16

PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited

2016

RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)

2015

In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others

2007

Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies

JOSHUA BATES TRADING BERMUDA vs BRIAN HUXLEY

summary of The Respondent ordered five kitchen appliances from the Appellant. A dispute arose over one appliance not matching the order. The Appellant sued for the balance owed and the Respondent counterclaimed for the cost of the incorrect good

bottom of page