Kamau carries on the business of sugar

distribution in Kenya.By an agreement

made between him and

So sweet sugar Factory, on 12th March

2017 , he agreed to purchase from the

factory10,000,000 kgsof

sugar packed in 1000kgand 500 kg

bags at the price of Kshs. 319,000,000/=.

Kamau paid half of the

purchase price.In pursuance of the said

agreement So Sweet supplied Kamau with

a total of 2,103,000kgs

of sugar at the cost of Kshs. 67,967,750/=.

Subsequently and by a letter dated 13th

April 2017 So Sweet,

informed Kamau that the Minister of Agriculture had revised the price of Sugar

from state owned millers

upwards and therefore Kamau was

supposed to top up some amount to

meet the new price. Kamau

visited So Sweet warehouses severally

and sought to access the remaining

consignment but was denied

access to it. Two weeks letter So Sweet

repudiated the contract and refunded

balance of the price to

Kamau. As a result of this Kamau has

suffered loss in his business and has since

shut down his distribution

network. He has sued So Sweet for

breach of contract. The matter has come

to you to advice So Sweet Sugar Factory. During the meeting the

following facts are presented in court

1.That Kamau had been purchasing

Sugar from So Sweet for ten years.

2.That Kamau would pay half of the

purchase price at the time of making the

order and the final

payment would be done after collection

of the last consignment.

3.That once an order had been made So

Sweet would store the order amount in

a warehouse on

their premises andKamau would pay a

monthly charge for the warehouse until

he finished

collecting the sugar

well-reasoned Advisory