{"issue_text":"Whether the defendant breached the terms of the contract between the parties","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Tiles lifted within 3 months; multiple repair attempts failed; warranty still subsisted"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff varied the terms of the warranty","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Plaintiff chose grey instead of black tiles; same quality different color"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff was negligent in the maintenance of the tiles","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Cleaning methods used; water accumulation under tiles"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Breach established; warranty breached; quantum of damages"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff contracted the defendant to supply and fix industrial interlocking rubber tiles at its workshop for US$27,260-29 with a 3-year warranty. Within 3 months the tiles started lifting due to poor workmanship and quality issues. Despite multiple attempts to rectify the defects, the problem persisted until the plaintiff removed the tiles in July 2011 and sued for a refund.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases