Gopal Sri Ram FCJ:

[1] The appellants are house-buyers. The respondent is a licensed developer. The appellants entered into separate agreements with the respondent to purchase apartments built by it. The respondent took the position that it had delivered the apartments to the appellants in accordance with the agreements it had with them. The appellants disputed this. They took the position that there had not been delivery in accordance with the terms of the agreement. They claimed compensation for late delivery. The High Court agreed with the appellants and ordered the respondent to pay liquidated and ascertained damages for late delivery. The Court of Appeal varied the High Court's order by reducing the sum awarded. It did this on the basis that time should stop running against the respondent as of the date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupation. As it happens, no such certificate was ever produced by the respondent at the hearing before the High Court. The appellants then obtained leave of this Court and brought the appeal herein before us.

[2] The gist of the appellant's case before us is that the respondent breached cl 23 of the agreement in question. That