Questions On The County Court Money Claims Online

1633 WordsFeb 15, 20177 Pages
IN THE COUNTY COURT MONEY CLAIMS ONLINE CASE NO B59YM066 BETWEEN: SHANE TRAYLEN & COMPANY LIMITED Claimant -&- CLARE STACEY Defendant _______________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The entities involved in the dispute are 1.1. On the 21st July 2009, the Claimant SHANE TRAYLEN AND COMPANY LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS, TRADE EXPERTS AND COMPANY LIMITED (TXCO) entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of building services (Fit-out works). 1.2. At all material times, the Defendant MISS CLARE STACEY (Approx. 2 months Pregnant) was the owner, and SOLE TRADER known as THE BAMBOO BAR AND LOUNGE 2. In June 2009, the Defendant approached Claimant regarding undertaking the fit-out works at her proposed Bamboo Bar and lounge…show more content…
3.2. The Defendant 's negligent actions and carelessness placed others at risk and caused severe financial disruptions and loss to the Claimant to the sum of £ 55,329.00 plus damages and interest as indicated in invoices and statement of costs. 4. On the 21st July 2009, The Claimant submitted a brief quote of £14835.00 plus Vat @15% for the essential works required by the Defendant. The quote clearly indicated that the Claimant would charge the Defendant accordingly for any additional costs. Mr Traylen Personally explained the procedure systematically so as the Defendant fully understood and agreed on the Claimants terms and conditions. She was made entirely aware that payment was within a period of 14 days of submission as specified. 4.1. The Defendants actions to initiate works unlawfully entered her into a contractual obligation, legally binding her to the contractual agreement of terms and conditions set out by the Claimant. 4.2. The Defendant after that assured the Claimant everything was right to progress and issued Mr Traylen with a set of the premises keys for the proposed bar on 325 Fleet Road, and instructed him to start works on site immediately. The Defendant fraudulently misled the Claimant into a contract of works, without a secured a loan, funds or the means of paying for works. The Defendant after that breached the contract for non-payment for services, as she did not have the ways
Open Document