{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiff's claim is prescribed","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Fertiliser sold end 2002, summons issued October 2006"}
{"issue_text":"Whether defendant made proper tender of sale proceeds","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Dispute over amount and form of tender"}
{"issue_text":"Whether defendant undertook to replace fertiliser","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Letter from ex-employee, meeting in early 2003"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Plaintiff delivered 623 bags of urea fertiliser to defendant's premises for gratuitous storage in April 2002. Defendant later sold 383 bags under pressure from authorities and tendered proceeds to plaintiff, which plaintiff refused. Plaintiff claimed return of fertiliser or its value. Defendant raised prescription as defence.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases