Jones v Okada

Okada purchased a boiler, a pump, and piping from Jones. Okada could not deliver some of the full payment for the items noted, and the plaintiff seized the goods through Lowden. Jones was then supposed to release the items to Okada so that the defendant could mortgage them and undertake a new payment program. Okada failed to deliver these payments, and Jones sued him for the debt and interest that he still owed: $524.25. The defendant claimed that Jones had not return the goods to him “in such a way as to put the defendant in immediate possession thereof,” when these materials were needed in order for him to “work with advantage on his claim” and thus produce the necessary funds. (558) Fraud and “misconception by the defendant, he being a foreigner,” are listed as defences provided. (558) Dugas determines that Jones’ “negligence to have those goods... delivered at a proper time” puts him “at fault.” (560) He recommended the claim and counter-claim be dismissed without costs.