Tan Ah Tah J:

This is an appeal from a judgment of Chua J in which it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover from the defendants the sum of $60,000, with interest, upon an account stated.

According to the evidence the defendants, who were partners in a firm carrying on business under the style of Teck Guan Fishing Co. at Tawau, British North Borneo, commenced to have business dealings in 1949 with a partnership carrying on business in Singapore under the firm name of Lam Soon Cannery Co. In 1950 Lam Soon Cannery Co. was converted into a limited company and it is this company who are the plaintiffs in this case. The whole of the business carried on by the firm of Lam Soon Cannery Co. was taken over by the plaintiffs who continued to have business transactions with the defendants.

In the course of their business with the plaintiffs the defendants shipped a quantity of copra to the plaintiffs between December 1951 and February 1952. No agreement was reached between the parties as to the price at which the copra was to be sold and by 7 February 1952 the plaintiffs had in their godown 9,297 bags of copra which had been shipped to them by the defendants. In August 1952 the first defendant came to Singapore and discussed the question of the price of the copra with Ng Keng Soon, the plaintiffs' managing director. It was thereupon agreed that the plaintiffs would buy the copra at $31 per picul.

After the price had been agreed upon, a draft statement of account was prepared and shown to the first defendant, who requested the plaintiffs to send it to his office in North Borneo. The statement of account which was dated 27 August 1952 was in due course posted to the defendants together with a covering letter dated 29 August 1952; the account showed a balance of $67,216.29 due by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

Subsequently, there was an exchange of correspondence in Chinese between the parties and eventually the plaintiffs received a letter dated 27 December 1952 from the defendants. The learned trial Judge held that this letter referred to the statement of account dated 27 August 1952, that there was a definite acknowledgement in the letter by the defendants that they were indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $60,000 and that there was therefore an account stated as to $60,000.

One of the grounds of appeal relied upon by the defendants is that the letter dated 27 December 1952 was not addressed to the plaintiffs but to the partnership firm of Lam Soon Co. It is contended by Counsel for the defendants that, if the letter contained an admission, it was an admission made to a third party and not to the plaintiffs. On this point it is to be observed that there is nothing in the record to show that a firm carrying on business under the style of Lam Soon Co. ever existed. Evidence was therefore admissible to show what the words "Lam Soon Co." meant. Such evidence was adduced in the Court below and is dealt with in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. After considering the matter, he states in his judgment that there is no doubt from the evidence that the defendants were at the material time dealing not with Lam Soon Cannery Co. but with the plaintiffs. There was ample evidence on which the learned trial Judge could make this finding of fact, and, in my opinion, he was justified in making it. I am satisfied that the letter dated 27 December 1952 was addressed to the plaintiffs and not to a third party. This ground of appeal therefore fails.

The main ground of appeal relied upon by the defendants is that the letter dated 27 December 1952 did not constitute an account stated between the parties. It is submitted by Court for the defendants that the parties never agreed upon a figure and that there was no consensus ad idem between them as to the amount alleged to be due. He therefore contends that there was no account stated between the parties.

It is settled law that to constitute an account stated the follo