Raja Azlan Shah J:

[1] The plaintiff claims specific performance of an agreement for sale of a rubber estate totalling 607.5 acres comprised in Lease of State Land No 1468 for Lot 2813 situate in the Mukim of Sungei Buloh in the District of Kuala Lumpur, alternatively damages for breach of contract and in the further alternative rescission of the contract and payment of sums totalling $650,000.

[2] By the said agreement dated 4 June 1966 the defendants, a limited liability company registered in the United Kingdom with Malayan Estate Agencies Group Ltd as their agents (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants' agents") agreed to sell and the plaintiff, a landed proprietor, agreed to buy the said land at the price of $950,000 on the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement.

[3] The plaintiff as was required by cl 1 paid a sum of $95,000 ie, 100f the purchase price by way of forfeitable deposit, on or before the execution of the said agreement. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid on 30 November 1966 the date fixed for completion of the purchase (cl 2) and by cl 17, time wherever mentioned was expressly made of the essence of the contract.

[4] At the request of the plaintiff the defendants consented to extension of time for completion on six separate occasions on the following terms and conditions:

(1) In consideration of a further forfeitable deposit of $95,000 (100f the purchase price) making a total forfeitable deposit of 20%, the date of completion was extended to 31 January 1967 by an exchange of letters between the plaintiff's then solicitor and the defendants' solicitors dated 25 November 1966 and 1 December 1966 respectively.

(2) In consideration of the payment of a further forfeitable deposit of $10,000 thereby making a total forfeitable deposit of $200,000 the date of completion was extended to 31 March 1967 by an exchange of letters between the plaintiff's then solicitor and the defendants' agents dated 20 February 1967 and 23 February 1967 respectively.

(3) In consideration of the payment of a further forfeitable deposit of $100,000 thereby making a total forfeitable deposit of $300,000, the date of completion was extended to 15 May 1967 by an exchange of letters between the plaintiffs then solicitor and the defendants' agents dated 31 March 1967 and 2 May 1967 respectively.

(4) The date of completion was later extended to 30 June 1967 vide the defendants 'agents' letter dated 26 May 1967.

(5) The date of completion was further extended to 30 September 1967 by an exchange of letters between the plaintiffs then solicitor and the defendants' agents dated 30 August 1967 and 12 September 1967 respectively.

(6) The date of completion was finally extended to 15 November 1967 by an exchange of letters dated 30 September 1967 and 2 October 1967 whereby the balance of the purchase price amounting to $650,000 was to be paid by four instalments of $100,000 on 30 September 1967, $100,000 on 13 October 1967. $150,000 on 30 October 1967 and $300,000 on 15 November respectively.

[5] The plaintiff paid the first three instalments amounting to $350,000 by postdated cheques which were honoured. We now come to the crux of the matter ie, the final instalment to complete the purchase. This was also by a post dated cheque of the above-stated date. On 13 November 1967 the plaintiff's then solicitor made proposals to the defendants' agents for extension of time up to 31 December 1967 to complete the purchase. The defendants' agents consulted their principals in the United Kingdom and on 15 November 1967 they wrote to the plaintiff's then solicitor informing him that their principals were not willing to grant the plaintiff any further extension of time and insisted that the purchase be completed by noon of that day or the agreement be terminated and his deposits forfeited. On the same day the plaintiff's then solicitor wrote to the defendants' agents proposing a settlement of the final payment by giving the plaintiff time ti