{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in ordering payment in USD or prevailing bank rate contrary to currency conversion laws","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Payment of US$3000 in 2017, ZWL$3000 payment in 2022"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo misapplied principles of unjust enrichment","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Court decided case on unjust enrichment not pleaded by parties"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the claim was extinguished by prescription","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Debt arose in 2017, payment made in 2022"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo should have considered alternative prayer for specific performance","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent sought either refund or delivery of vehicle"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
In May 2017, the parties entered a verbal agreement where respondent paid appellant US$3000 for delivery of a motor vehicle. Appellant failed to deliver the vehicle. In August 2022, appellant paid respondent ZWL$3000 which respondent rejected as inadequate. Respondent sued in Magistrates Court seeking refund. Magistrate ordered payment in USD or equivalent at prevailing rate. Appellant appealed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases