Not every threat will annul a contract. This was held in a judgement delivered by Judge Miriam Hayman on 6 March 2026 in the Best Deals International Limited (the plaintiff) vs Charlton Chetcuti et. (the defendant).
Best Deals claimed in its sworn application that Chetcuti was contracted in 2013 to deliver furniture to customers. His duties also included the collection of payments from the customers. In 2014, it transpired that the defendant was keeping part of that money. In April 2015, he admitted to this and signed an agreement where he would repay the company €139,609. He paid €18,400 but then stopped paying his debt. The company asked the court to order him to pay €121,209.
In his counterclaim, the defendant said that he signed the agreement under duress and did not owe any money to the company. He then asked for the €18,400 to be paid back.
The company denied using undue pressure, insisting the defendant signed the agreement voluntarily.
The company directors testified on the procedure used when contracting the defendant. On a daily basis, a batch of papers containing a list of customers and the amount to be collected was handed to Chetcuti. The papers and the money were returned, checked and inputted in a computer system. Subsequently, the accounts department informed the directors that they were finding discrepancies. When the defendant was confronted with this, he just told the company that he had to check whether there were papers and monies in his truck. The company discovered a discrepancy of €139,609. One of the directors drafted the agreement and it was agreed that the defendant would continue working with the company and a sum was to be deducted from his earnings.
The defendant testified that he always gave the papers and the money he collected to one of the directors and when she was not there to one of the other directors. He said that he kept a record of what he gave the company and when confronted, he checked his truck just in case he had mislaid a paper or two. Chetcuti found nothing in his truck. Chetcuti described the pressure he was under to admit that he pocketed the money and claimed the company threatened to tell his father who at the time was unwell. He started paying back the company after signing the agreement.
A previous employer of the defendant testified that he had experienced the same situation. Chetcuti had kept to himself a smaller sum, which was eventually returned.
On the merits of the case, the court pointed out the two principles governing a judicial process. The first is that the person making allegations must prove them and the second is when there is a conflict of evidence, the court may still arrive at a conclusion by seeing whether the testimony can be corroborated with other evidence.
In this particular case the parties agreed on the sum owed to the company and how it was to be paid. The defendant started to pay on the basis of this agreement and even produced a cheque of €30,000, which was not honoured. The court also commented that the system the plaintiff company used was acceptable and reconciliation could not be immediate because of the volume of work. The company was not disorganised and the defendant just sowed doubt without proving his claims. The court also decreed that the company was not at fault for the failure to receive payments from its clients. These were not one-off instances. It was the defendant who received payments and failed to deliver the money and documents as required.
The court pointed out that the original claim was for €139,609. However, a document presented in court indicated a claim for €115,854. The company did not justify this discrepancy. Since the defendant did pay €18,400, then the amount due was set at €97,454. The court dismissed the defendant’s plea that the company was not credible.
As to the counter-claims raised by Chetcuti, the court dismissed them. The court did not accept that the company had used undue pressure. It transpired that Chetcuti issued a cheque belonging to his sister and it was she who informed their father.
The court then upheld the company’s claims and ordered the defendant to pay €97,454.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
