i) Breach of Condition vs. Breach of Warranty:

• Classification of Contract Terms: The terms of a contract are classified as conditions, warranties, or innominate terms. Parties will usually designate which classification a contract term falls under. Breach of a condition of a contract can constitute a breach of the contract as a whole, allowing the non-breaching party to sue for damages as well as seek rescission of the contract. (3 marks)
• Implied Warranty: An owner who lets out a chattel on hire must take reasonable care to ensure that it is in a condition reasonably fit for the purpose for which the bailee was to use it. The owner would impliedly warrant the suitability of the chattel for that purpose and is liable to the bailee for breach of the warranty. (3 marks)
• Application to the Case: In the instant case, there was indeed a breach of implied warranty, and it would not have resulted in the repudiation of the contract. Therefore, Kojo Atua rightly sued for damages. (4 marks)

ii) Justification for the Award of GH¢20,000.00:

• Consideration of Part Performance: The issue arising in the question is whether the Court rightly awarded the special damages of GH¢20,000.00 to Kojo Atua for failure of consideration. A claim for money had and received is not maintainable if the contract had been partly performed and some benefit has been derived from the part performance. (2 marks)
• Evidence of Part Performance: In the present case, the evidence clearly showed that although the tractor was defective and operated at a rate substantially below the declared capacity, it did some work, having hauled a total of 60 logs. (2 marks)
• Error in Award: The Court erred in law in basing the award of the special damages on a total failure of consideration. There was part performance, and for which reason one cannot say that consideration had failed.      (6 marks)

(Total: 20 marks)