The plaintiff supplied to the defendants at Port Harcourt all the machineries which were ordered by the defendant from the plaintiff. Amongst the machineries was a hydraulic crane described as “T.788 Koehring crane” whose net selling price was N93, 100.00. This crane was the bone of contention. Of the net price the defendant paid the sum of N66, 443.33 to the plaintiff. It was the balance of the price and some charges that were being claimed by the plaintiff.

As the crane developed trouble soon after its delivery and throughout the guarantee period, the defendant complained that it was not suitable for the purpose for which it was bought and was not therefore of merchantable quality.

The learned trial Judge relying on the evidence before him and the provisions of section 14 subsections (2) and (3) of the English sale of Goods Act, 1893 found that the crane was not merchantable and gave judgment in favour of the respondent.

The Judge had relied on the provisions of sections 14(2) and (3) of the English sale of Goods Act, 1893 and granted the respondents damages as per their counter claim.

Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal. That Court also relied on sections 14(2) and (3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 and alluded to sections 53 and 54 thereof before holding that the respondent’s counter-claim was in order.

As regards the respondents claim for a refund the Court held that they were entitled to it as the crane was not of merchantable quality.

Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.