(delivering the judgment of Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) and himself): The first respondent/plaintiff had alleged that he had been induced by false and fraudulent misrepresentations by Mr Mahesan, solicitor acting for and on behalf of the appellant, to vacate a shop where he was running a hair-dressing saloon and of which he was a lawful tenant of the appellant. His claim was for certain declarations and for damages including exemplary damages for fraud.

Briefly, the first respondent alleged that sometime in April 1984 the appellant had expressed an intention to obtain vacant possession of the premises earlier mentioned. The appellant then instructed Mr Mahesan to act on its behalf and, inter alia, to negotiate with the first respondent in order to obtain vacant possession. On 28 April 1984, Mr Mahesan allegedly made oral representation to the first respondent that the appellant would pay $170,000 to him if he would close down his business and deliver vacant possession on or before July 1984. Acting in belief of such representation by Mr Mahesan, the first respondent had on or about 30 July 1984 taken steps to close down his business at the premises, whilst retaining poss