Court held claim for tree value statute-barred as sale and delivery occurred simultaneously within limitation period.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's judgment because the claim was statute-barred. The Respondent sold and delivered a walnut tree to the Appellant on March 25, 1959, but failed to collect the agreed price until the lawsuit was filed in October 1962. The court determined that the simultaneous sale and delivery triggered the two-year limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Law, rendering the claim time-barred despite the delayed payment.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IALimitation of Actions Law, Cap. 15, section 3(1)(f); Goods sold and delivered at the same time constitute a complete transaction, and any subsequent delay in payment does not extend the limitation period for recovery of value.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*276] 1965 March
(ΖΕΚΙA, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES AND JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Alexandros Pilakouri of Spilia,
Appellant-Defendant,
v.
Georghios Savva Samouti of Spilia,
Respondent-Plaintiff.
(Civil Appeal No. 4477).
Prescription - The Limitation of Actions Law, Cap. 15, section 3(1)(f)
- Action for the recovery of the value of a tree sold and delivered to the Appellant - Claim became statute-barred owing to the lapse of more than two years.
Limitation of Actions - Limitation of Actions Law, Cap.15, section 3(1)(f)
- "Goods sold and delivered".
A. Pantelides, for the Appellant.
A. Hadjiloannou, for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
ZEKIA, P.: On the 23rd March, 1959, Respondent sold, under a contract of sale, to Appellant a walnut tree which was to be severed by the Appellant; a price of £16 was to be paid by the 30th March, 1959·[*276]
On or about the 25th March, 1959, the purchaser, the Appellant, severed the walnut tree and took delivery of it but he failed to pay its value up to this date.
The action was brought on the 30th October, 1962, by the Respondent, to recover the value of the tree sold.
The above facts are admitted. Appellant has not disputed the non-payment but has claimed that the claim was statute-barred.
The whole issue turns on the application of section 3(l)(f) of the Limitation of Actions Law, Cap. 15, to the facts of this Case.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent that this section applies only where goods are sold and delivered at the same time and if sale and delivery do not take place at the same time this section is not applicable.
We have considered the matter but we do not entertain any doubt that, in this particular case, there was, in the first instance, an agreement to sell and on the 25th March, 1959, there was a sale and delivery and that such sale and delivery have taken place at the same time, even if this was to be considered essential.
The payment was due on the 30th March, 1959· Since then up to the date of the action more than two years elapsed and we are of the opinion that the claim of the Respondent- Plaintiff became statute-barred.
The appeal is allowed and the Judgment of the court below is set aside.
No order as to costs for this appeal or for the 1rial in the Court below.
Appeal allowed.
Judgment of the Court
below set aside.
Order as to costs