Table of Content
1. summary of legal conclusions surrounding oral agreements and breach. (Para 31 , 32)

The court of Appeal in that case referred to the judgment of Edgar Joseph Jr J (as he then was) in Tan Cheng Hock v. Chan Thean Soo , 1986 MarsdenLR 825 where the learned judge:

I therefore asked myself the question whether I should draw an adverse inference against Chan, from his failure to reply.

In Wiedemann v. Walpole [1891] 2 QB 534, 537, an action for breach of promise of marriage, it was held, that the mere fact that the defendant did not answer letters written to him by the plaintiff in which she stated that he had promised to marry her, was no evidence corroborating the plaintiffs testimony in support of such promise. Lord Esher M R, in his judgment, remarked, Here, we have only to see whether the mere fact of not answering the letters, with nothing else for us to consider is any evidence in corroboration of the promise. (Emphasis added). Earlier, in his judgment, he said, Now there are cases; business and mercantile cases in which the Courts have taken notice that, in the ordinary course of business, if one man of business states in a letter to another that he has agreed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document