After a thorough tendering process, the plaintiff chose the defendant to supply identification badges fir the workers. They were supposed to be laminated using the highest quality lamination paper. The two parties signed a contract to ascertain that only the highest quality lamination paper would be used. The defendant was very excited since that was the biggest contract he ever had and he thought that this would be the best step to the acquisition of his dreams in business. He had enough capital and he knew the best person to work with.
His friend was a renowned laminator and handled big companies. Immediately after signing the agreement, he called his friend to inform him of his luck. His friend was not very happy since he knew the defendant as a brilliant businessman, and having been able to secure such a big contract with a bank. He saw him as a threat to his flourishing business in the city. He wanted to make the best plot that would lead to crumbling of his plans and business aspirations. A day later, the two businessmen met and discussed the contract.
The defendant was happy to work with the experienced friend and saw that they had a lot of future together as partners and friends. They agreed on the prices and commissions and the job was to commence immediately. The deliveries were to be made in a fortnight. Being good friends for a long time, there was no need for a signed document. The friend to the defendant looked at the specifications and produced identifications that were two grades lower than the ones explained in the agreement.
He held them for a long time and only availed them to the defendant just a day before delivery. Excited, he did not look at the quality and being fairly incompetent in the field went straight to deliver the laminated identification cards to the bank. He was surprised when he was told that his products were not the best quality but he could not hear of it. He refured to take them away and was sued for delivery of goods that contradicted with the quality that was stipulated in the agreement. The bank filed a case against the defendant on 3rd January 2012.