Claim No.
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler
of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
OF
DIFC COURTS
BEFORE SCT
JUDGE
SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
BETWEEN
DAISY
Claimant
and
(1) DALE
(2) DALTON
Defendants
Hearing: 4 July 2013
Judgment: 22 July 2013
JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
UPONhearing the Claimant and the
Defendant
AND UPONreading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the
Court
file
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The Claim be dismissed
The reasons:
Parties
1. The Claimant is Daisy
2. The Defendants are (1) Dale (2) Dalton
Background and the preceding history
1. The Claimant alleged that he had a contract with the Defendants to pay to buy their car and that he had paid them the sum of AED 10,000 as a deposit.
2. The Claimant requested that the Defendants either deliver the car or pay back the deposited amount. The Defendants had refused to refund the Claimant and sold the car to a third party, which led the Claimant to file this case before the Court.
3. The Parties have elected in writing to proceed in the
DIFC Courts
.
4. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 4 July 2013 I heard both parties' submissions.
Particulars and Defence
5. In his Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that Dalton has advertised a used Mercedes Benz 350 for sale for AED 115,000 on Dubizzle.com. The Claimant visited Dalton at Damac Tower Parking,
DIFC
on 4 June 2013 when he saw the vehicle, test drove it and agreed on the same advertise price, but had asked the defendant for a certified mechanic's report from the Mercedes Benz agent in Dubai in order to apply for bank facilities and fund this sale agreement in accordance with the Defendants' advertisement. The Defendants could not provide a report for the vehicle and refused to deliver the vehicle to the Claimant to be inspected by a mechanic.
6. In their Defence, the Defendants argued that the car was register under Dale's name, that she asked her son, Dalton, to advertise the car for sale and that he had received from the Claimant the sum of AED 10,000 as a deposit for the car. The Defendants had then repaired few spare parts of the vehicle, as requested by the Claimant, who failed to pay the total price of the vehicle which led the Defendants to sell the car to another more serious buyer.
Finding
7. It is clear on the face of all facts and evidence filed in this case that the Contract of Sale of Car had not performed for some reasons and it became impossible for the Defendants to perform their obligation to deliver the car to the Claimant, as it had been sold to third party. The Claimant therefore has the right to terminate the Contract of Sale of Car according to DIFC Contract Law No. 6 of 2004. The Defendants shall therefore refund the Claimant the sum, namely the deposited amount of AED 10,000, which the Defendants had received as consideration for delivering the vehicle to the Claimant, which the Defendants never performed. The Defendant must also pay Court fees of this claim.
Shamlan Al Sawalehi
Small Claims
Tribunal
Judge
Date of Issue: 22 July 2013
At: 1pm
