This was an application for an order of specific performance compelling the defendants to sign transfers of an aircraft.

The court considered the indebtedness of both parties to each other and held that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendants in respect of leasing and purchasing. The court applied the rule that people who freely negotiate and conclude a contract should be held to their bargain and found that the plaintiff’s defence of duress was unviable, since the defendants were entitled to ground the aircraft on grounds of non-payment.

Secondly, the court determined whether the defendants/counterclaimants were entitled to the interest payments claimed in the counterclaim. The court held that the defendants were entitled to the interest as agreed upon in the reconciliation document.

Thirdly, the court considered whether the counter-claimants/ defendants have a cause of action against the second defendant. The court relied on the concept that only parties to a contract can sue for breach (privity of contract). It observed that there were exceptions to this rule where a third party can prove that he is a beneficiary of the contract between the two people. The court held that the defendants were third party beneficiaries since the loan agreement between the first defendant and the second defendant was for their benefit.

Accordingly the case was dismissed and the defendant was awarded special damages and general damages as prayed for, but denied aggravated damages.