A supplier of heavy equipment sued for payment of an invoice after performing quarry stripping work for the defendant.
The defendant admitted the work was completed and the invoice amount correct but argued the services were to be set off against a separate debt owed by a third company related to the supplier’s principal.
After reviewing testimony and documentary evidence, the court found no agreement for set-off, no cheque‑exchange arrangement, and no basis for legal or equitable set‑off or promissory estoppel.
The court held the plaintiff contracted directly with the defendant and was entitled to payment of the invoice.
The defendant’s counterclaim alleging misrepresentation and damages relating to the third party debt was dismissed.
