%20(1).png)
Revocate s/o Pascal v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 42-A-67, 28/11/67, Seaton J.
Accused went on “a minor rampage” in complainant’s pombe bar, engaging in a fight and pouring pombe on various customers. At issue is the order of the trial court that accused pay compensation of Shs. 90/- to complainant.
Held: The figure of Shs. 90/- constitutes the selling price of 9 tins of pombe which complainant would have sold had not accused ’s conduct driven customers away. Apparently the pombe spoiled eventually, so the full value of the 9 tins is claimed. While it was not clear why complainant did not attempt to reduce his loss by selling the pombe later that night or the next day, even if at a reduced price, this factor does not in any way limit complainant’s recovery.
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png&description=Revocate s/o Pascal v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 42-A-67, 28/11/67, Seaton J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.