contract lawbreach of contractcredit sale agreementrepossession
legislation
Statutes Cited
Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) Regulations
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicants were entitled to cancel the contract and repossess the bus when they had breached the contract first","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"First applicant failed to deliver accessories; respondent failed to pay instalments"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the principle of exceptio non adimpleti contractus applies to prevent the applicants from enforcing the contract","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Bilateral contract with reciprocal obligations"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicants sold a 63-seater bus to the respondent on credit sale terms. The respondent paid the deposit but failed to pay two consecutive instalments. The applicants sought to cancel the agreement and repossess the bus. The respondent defended on the basis that the applicants had breached the contract first by failing to deliver essential accessories required for the bus's operation.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases