NP wins $5m in lawsuit for supply of products

TWO local companies have been ordered to pay to National Petroleum Marketing Company (NP) close to TT$5 million owed for the supply of products for distribution in Guyana.

The order was made by Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh who ruled that NP had proved it was owed US$731,624.09 by Lincoln and Associates (LAL) and Dooks Dynamics Inc (DDL). Tacked on to the judgment sum was Interest of two per cent, per annum, from May 1, 2013 to January 29, 2020.

In a decision delivered at the Port of Spain High Court, Boodoosingh said there was no dispute that products were handed over from NP to DDL and once the items were received, it was DDL’s obligation to pay for the products.

The judge was asked to determine a claim by NP for payment owed in an arrangement it had with LAL and its director Lincoln Dookhran, who is also a director of DDL, to distribute products in Guyana to Guyana Sugar Corporation (GUYSUCO).

The parties entered the arrangement on August 2, 2012, and a condition of the agreement was that LAL and Dookhran would incorporate a company in Guyana to conduct the distribution. This led to the incorporation of DDL on October 11, 2012.

In its claim, NP pleaded that DDL began buying products from NP from November 2012 to April 2013.

According to NP a term of the contract provided for 60 days credit on all purchases from NP and in the event DDL failed to liquidate the invoiced amount within that time, DDL incurred a finance charge of one per cent each month on the sum. This was later increased to two per cent. Because DDL did not liquidate certain sums from June 2013 to October 2016, NP applied the finance charges.

When DDL, according to NP, failed to make full and timely payments the supply of products was suspended. This happened on two occasions in December 2012 and May 2013.

The companies admitted it owed NP, but in a counter-claim contended the marketing company breached its contractual obligations by suspending supply and the amount outstanding was not close to the TT$3 million credit limit in the contract.

The companies alleged economic duress by NP to agree to the debts and caused the company substantial losses as it could not supply GUYSUCO with products.

In his decision, Boodoosingh said while NP made out its case for payment, it could not sustain its claim for US$100,322.62 in finance charges.

He also declined the request by NP to pierce the corporate veil, saying there was no justification for it as there was no evidence of any deliberate attempt to evade its obligations. The piercing of the corporate veil is used sparingly by the courts and only where there is evidence of an attempt to avoid a legal obligation.

In describing the contract between the parties, Boodoosingh said it was not properly vetted and there existed a mix of letters and oral discussions between them, further describing it as a “loose arrangement.”

In ordering LAL and DDL to pay the outstanding money owed, Boodoosingh dismissed NP’s claim against Dookhran. He has also granted a stay of the execution of his judgment for 28 days.

NP was represented by attorneys Kelvin Ramkissoon and Nizam Saladeen while Navindra Ramnanan and Shivanand Ramnanan represented LAL, DDL and Dookhran.