IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING IN LONDON Claim No.

CYS162

BETWEEN:
VEG DIRECT LIMITED
Claimant
and

SUPER CHEF LIMITED

Defendant

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENCE

1. All references to paragraph numbers herein are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars
of Claim unless otherwise stated. For the sake of convenience, the Defendant employs
the same abbreviations as are set out in the Particulars of Claim.

2. Paragraph 1 is admitted.

3. As to Paragraph 2:

a. it is admitted that on 18 February 2020 the parties entered into the

Agreement whereby the Claimant would supply and deliver to the Defendant
vegetables in accordance with the Trading Agreement; and

b. except that it is denied that the Defendant agreed to pay the price of
vegetables as stated in the price list at the date of delivery of the relevant
order. According to the Trading Agreement the Defendant should pay the
price as per Claimant’s price list at the date on which relevant order is placed
and not on the date of delivery of the relevant order.

4. On 18 February Patrick Farebrother of the Defendant spoke on the telephone to Ruby

Kingfisher of the Claimant in which:

a. Patrick Farebrother of the Defendant made known to Ruby Kingfisher of the

Claimant that the Defendant have become the market leaders in providing
high quality recipe boxes, delivered to customers’ homes across the UK

1
 and the Defendant requires the best ingredients to be put in the boxes they
supply. The nature of the business was explained on the telephone; and

b. Ruby Kingfisher of the Claimant told that they offer a discount of 10% off
the price for any orders above £40,000. This was important for Patrick
Farebrother of the Defendant in choosing the Claimant to supply the
vegetables.

5. Paragraph 3 is admitted.

6. The following warranties were implied into the Trade Agreement pursuant to the Sale
of Goods Act 1979 (“SGA 1979”). The vegetables supplied to the Defendant would be:

a. of satisfactory quality (section 14(2));

b. reasonably fit for the purpose (section 14(3)).

7. As to paragraph 4:

a. sub-paragraphs a, c and d are admitted;

b. sub-paragraph b is denied, the Defendant ordered 60,000 heads of

asparagus at £0.50 each. At the time of order, due to bumper crop
asparagus was being offered at £0.50 per head instead of £1.

8. Except that it is denied for the reasons set out in this Defence and Counterclaim that
the order delivered was in accordance with the Trading Agreement, the Claimant is
required to prove the other matters stated in paragraph 5.

9. Paragraph 6 is denied. The claimant was in breach of the warranties that were implied
into the Trade Agreement. Specifically, the Claimant:

PARTICULARS OF BREACH

a. failed to provide the best suitable vegetables to the Defendant for the
boxes;

b. failed to provide vegetables of the satisfactory quality, the rainbow chard

was not sufficiently fresh, and it had wilted by the time the consumer's
wanted to cook;

c. failed to provide asparagus spears of reasonable size, the asparagus

spears were much smaller than expected, and that the meal was much
diminished on the plate as a result;

d. was aware of the particular purpose for which the goods were being bought.
The Claimant failed to provide vegetables reasonably fit for the purpose of
the Defendant business.

2
10. Paragraph 7 is denied. The sum is not £78,000 as claimed by the Claimant. The
Claimant failed to deliver 20,000 sprigs of dill at the price of £0.25 each, the Defendant
ordered asparagus at £0.50 each and there was a discount of 10% off the price for any
orders above £40,000. The total sum is £43,200. By the reasons set out in this Defence
and Counterclaim it is denied that the Defendant owes any money to the Claimant.

11. As Claimant is in the breach of warranty, pursuant to section 53(1) of SGA 1979 the
Defendant can set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or
extinction of the price.

12. Further or alternatively the Defendant shall seek to reduce or extinguish the Claimant’s
claims, as necessary by setting off the sum counterclaimed below against any sum
awarded.

COUNTERCLAIM

13. Paragraphs 3,4,6,7,9 and 10 of the defence are repeated.

14. At the time the Trade Agreement was entered, the Claimant knew that the Defendant
would require a good quality of vegetables for the purpose of their business. The
Claimant was aware of the nature of the Defendant’s business. The Claimant failed to
provide good quality of vegetables to the Defendant.

15. The Defendant failed to deliver the 20,000 sprigs of dill at £0.25 each. The dills are
essential as the garnish for a premium recipe. The Defendant had to phone the local
suppliers and had to pay twice the price that the Claimant would have charged (£0.50
a sprig instead of £0.25)The Defendant claim for damages for non-delivery pursuant to
section 51 of SGA 1979.

16. The Defendant had to issue refunds on the meal to all the customers who complained.
The Defendant had to issue a total of 15,000 refunds of £20.

17. Several customers also cancelled their boxes for the week beginning 30 November
because of the poor quality of the vegetables. The Defendant also lost 5,000 orders
and the Defendant make £5 on each order.

18. As a result of the facts and matters set out above, the Defendant has suffered loss.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS

Cost of the refunds £300,000

Loss of Profit £25,000
Cost of the dill £5,000

3
 19. Further, the Defendant is entitled to, and claims, interest pursuant to Section 69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 since the date on which each of the above-mentioned losses
were incurred:

a. on the sum of £300,000 from […] at a rate of 8% a year, amounting to […]

and per year £24,000 continuing at a daily rate of £65.75 until judgment or
earlier payment;

b. on the sum of £25,000 from […] at a rate of 8% a year, amounting to […]

and per year £2,000 continuing at a daily rate of £5.48 until judgment or
earlier payment;

c. on the sum of £5,000 from 23 November 2020 at a rate of 8% a year,

amounting to £140.16 and continuing at a daily rate of £1.09 until judgment
or earlier payment;
In the alternative, the Defendant claims interest on each of the aforementioned sums
for such amount and for such time as the court sees fit to grant.

AND the Defendant counterclaims:

(1) Damages;

(2) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984;

(3) Such further or other relief as the court sees fit to grant; and
(4) Costs.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

4
*(I believe) The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence and Counterclaim are
true.
* I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth
without an honest belief in its truth.
* I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.

Full name: Patrick Farebrother

Name of Defendant’s legal representative’s firm: Price Prior LLP

signed ______________________________position or office held: Director

*(Defendant)(Litigation friend) (if signing on behalf of firm or company)
(Defendant’s legal representative)
*delete as appropriate