<p>Foster-Sutton, P. The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendants for the wrongful seizure by them of an Austin motor lorry belonging to him. Both parties agreed that the plaintiff purchased the motor lorry from the defendants and that it was to be paid for by a first payment of £100 and the balance by monthly instalments of £40, but the plaintiff denied an allegation by defendants that it was further agreed that if he defaulted in any monthly payment the motor lorry could be seized providing he was given one week's notice of their intention to do so.</p><p>It was common ground that the plaintiff defaulted in his monthly payments that the motor lorry was seized by the defendants on the 5th October, 1951. The learned trial Judge found as a fact that it was a term of the agreement t the motor lorry could, upon default in payment of any monthly instalment, seized by the defendants after one week's notice had been given by them to plaintiff of their intention to do so, but he also found as a fact that the required of them had not been given before the motor lorry was seized. .g so found he went on to say, “There must be judgment for the plaintiff. With regard to the quantum of damages it is entirely due to the plaintiff's own behavior in not carrying out the terms of the agreement that he has suffered damage at all and I do not consider he is entitled to more than contemptuous damages and I award him 1- each side to bear its own costs.”</p><p>I am unable to agree that this is a case in which” contemptuous” or nominal damages could properly be awarded. While it is true that the plaintiff had defaulted in his payments, the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff to give the notice required by the agreement, and this they failed to do. It was not too that the plaintiff suffered no loss by reason of the seizure of the motor .He contended that he made £6 nett a day from its operation, and the second defendant gave evidence that the defendants had operated it for about eight months before it was sold to the plaintiff and that during that period they made between £2 10s. 0d. to £3 nett a day out of it. In the circumstances of this case I would, however, limit the damages for the trespass to the period for which the plaintiff could have retained and operated the motor lorry after notice, if such had in fact been given.</p><p>The notice required by the agreement was one week, and I would assess the damages at £3 per day for seven days, making a total of £21.</p><p>It follows that I would allow this appeal by increasing the damages awarded to the sum of £21, and I would further amend the judgment of the Court below by awarding the plaintiff his costs to be taxed.</p><p>The appellant to have costs on this appeal fixed at £37 3s. 0d.</p><p>Coussey, J.A. I concur. Windsor-Aubrey, J. I concur.</p><p>Appeal allowed: damages increased.</p>