{"issue_text":"Whether a valid and enforceable contract was concluded between the parties in May 2018","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Proforma invoice issued, payment made, acknowledgment of payment"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the contract became perfecta and enforceable given the suspensive condition of delivery upon project commencement","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Agreement that delivery would occur when project commenced"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent's defence of prescription has merit","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Contract concluded 2018, demand made 2025, acknowledgment in 2022"}
{"issue_text":"Whether currency changes through SI 33 of 2019 and SI 60 of 2024 extinguished contractual obligations","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Currency changes occurred after contract formation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether specific performance should be granted","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant paid deposit, respondent refused delivery"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a construction company, entered into a contract with the respondent in May 2018 for the purchase of building materials. The applicant paid a substantial deposit of US$135,167.40, and delivery was to occur when the applicant's construction project commenced. When the applicant demanded delivery in 2025, the respondent refused, citing prescription, currency changes, and alleged non-performance by the applicant.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases