The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $14,000 for breach of a distribution agreement.
The dispute arose when the respondent refused to make a payment without first inspecting the machinery, which the appellants refused to allow.
The Divisional Court found that while the Deputy Judge erred in admitting two affidavits without considering the appellants' inability to cross-examine the deponents, this error did not affect the result.
The court upheld the findings that the operability of the machine was relevant and that the appellants were liable for the respondent's loss.
The appeal was dismissed.
