Abu Mansor Ali JCA:

[1] The appellant in this appeal advanced ten grounds of appeal but they could conveniently be divided into three and the appellant took them together and that greatly assisted us.

[2] Firstly, in grounds 2 and 3, the appellant contended that on the evidence as a whole, by the Letter of Intent entered between the appellant and respondent dated 3 April 1985 (Letter of Intent), there was a concluded contract. The respondent was thereby estopped from denying there was such a contract.

[3] The appellant therefore says the learned trial Judge was plainly wrong when he held, at p 55 of the appeal record:

To my mind there could only be a new contract after the parties have agreed on all the matters which required to be agreed upon and a finalised contract sum was reached.

Having carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel on both sides and the evidence, both oral and documentary, I have come to the conclusions that (1) the sum of Ringgit Malaysia 37,971,579 was not a finalised contract sum; (ii) the letter of intent dated 3 April 1985 was not a concluded contract (iii) at all material time the parties have considered themselves to be still governed by th