|

News

Fun Snax claims raw deal from Shell, loses

Paul Henry

Friday, March 12, 2010



LOCAL food manufacturer Fun Snax Limited and Midel Distributors Limited have lost their $100-million lawsuit against Shell Company (West Indies) Limited.

The suit was brought against Shell following accusations that it had supplied the wrong kind of gas, which caused the manufactured goods to go bad, resulting in millions of dollars in losses.

The companies had in the year 2000 entered into an agreement for Shell to provide the gas used in the processing of the snacks -- corn grits, potato chips and rice balls, among other things.

In the latter part of 2000, the claimants alleged, they began receiving an unusual number of complaints about the quality of the products and a "significant" number of the snacks were returned.

The claimants felt that the goods were being "undercooked" and retaining more moisture than was acceptable because of the type of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) that was supplied.

A breach of contract and negligence suit was filed by the claimants who noted that LPG butane had been supplied instead of the agreed LPG propane. The claimants sought to recover $107,315,353, while claiming Shell did nothing to correct the problem.

In its defence, Shell said that there was no contract specifying the kind of gas to be provided. Furthermore, Shell said it had acted promptly to rectify the complaints from the claimants in or around November 2002.

Judgement was recently handed down during the Supreme Court trial which started in September 2008.

The court found that there was an agreement for the provision of a mixture of propane and butane gas. The court also found that there was no breach of contract or negligence on Shell's part -- and that allowing the baked products to remain in the oven for a while longer would have resolved the problem of undercooking.

"[The claimants] have not proven that the losses they suffered were due to the defendant supplying the LPG they had [been] contracted to provide," the judgement said.

The claimants were represented by attorneys John Graham and Glenroy Mellish, instructed by John Graham and Company. Attorneys Andre Earle, Anna Gracie and Ms T Jeffery, instructed by Rattray, Patterson, Rattray, appeared for the defendant.


POST A COMMENT


You must first register and then login to be able to post a comment.

HOUSE RULES

 

1. We welcome reader comments on the top stories of the day. Some comments may be republished on the website or in the newspaper – email addresses will not be published.

2. Please understand that comments are moderated and it is not always possible to publish all that have been submitted. We will, however, try to publish comments that are representative of all received.

3. We ask that comments are civil and free of libellous or hateful material. Also please stick to the topic under discussion.

4. Please do not write in block capitals since this makes your comment hard to read.

5. Please don't use the comments to advertise. However, our advertising department can be more than accommodating if emailed: advertising@jamaicaobserver.com.

6. If readers wish to report offensive comments, suggest a correction or share a story then please email: community@jamaicaobserver.com.

7. Lastly, read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, and before commenting you need to register, conveniently, by clicking the link above.



Comment (required):

You have characters left.
captcha bab1add7af094891b6c3e645c5f924c0
Enter text seen above:

For information about privacy please read our Privacy Policy.

I have read and accepted the Terms and Conditions


COMMENTS (0)

Daren Powell: KD Knight inspired me

  9 comments

 

NEPA prosecutes developer, farmer

  0 comments

 

US responds to Buju Banton’s appeal

  0 comments

 

Bob Marley documentary electrifies Berlin

  0 comments

 

Portland PC still pondering Pellew Island project

  0 comments

 

Costly dump fire - But tab lower than expected, says ODPEM

  0 comments

 

Help us find her - Family of missing nurse asks gov't to intervene

  0 comments

 

Guard your integrity!

  0 comments

 

4 guns seized by cops

  0 comments

 

BSI probes police killing

  0 comments

 

Another scientific achievement for Dr Lowe

  1 comments

 

Smoke clears, schools reopen

  0 comments

 

Taxi driver with 54 traffic breaches stripped of licence

  0 comments

 

Cops put on high alert

  0 comments

 

Farewell Dudley Thompson — champion of the Race

  0 comments

 

CLARIFICATION

  0 comments

 

Girl detained for allegedly poisoning family

  0 comments

 

Ed Gallimore shot and killed

  0 comments

 

Venezuela's opposition picks Chavez's challenger

  0 comments

 

ANANDA ALERT! Christina Wright missing

  0 comments

 

Today's Cartoon


Poll

Did you watch American football's Super Bowl on Sunday? 
Yes, but just for the advertisements
Yes, just for the game itself
Yes, for both the game and advertisements
No, I did not watch the Super Bowl.

View Results

Results published weekly in Sunday Finance


Username:
Password: