Thomson CJ:

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Neal J. I do not think it is an unfair summary of the appellant's grounds of appeal to say that they amount to this that she does not like the decision and hopes that this Court will be able to find something wrong with it.

[2] At some time the appellant would appear to have acquired rights of disposal over a quantity of mining machinery which had been lying unused since before the war on a piece of land in Trengganu known as the Bundi Concession, which lies some way from the mouth of the Kemaman River.

[3] The appellant's title to this machinery would seem to have given rise to a certain amount of litigation in the past. In the circumstances of the present case, however, the respondent is estopped from denying that the machinery belonged to her or that she had full powers of disposal over it including the power to sell it.

[4] On 30 June 1953, the parties entered into an agreement about this machinery which was reduced to writing. I am reluctant to express myself at length regarding this agreement because the solicitor who drafted it has recently died. I must, however, observe that it is lacking in clarity and precision. It seems to be to the effect that the appellant agrees to sell scrap iron lying on the Bundai Concession to the respondent at a price not exceeding $40 per ton. The whole thing is said to be subject to a so-called "delivery order" being obtained within three months though it is clear from the evidence that the term "delivery order" does not mean a delivery order in any ordinary sense but means permission from the Government to go on to the land to which access was for the time being forbidden under the Emergency Regulations for security reasons. Failure to comply with this condition is expressed to be subject to a penalty of $2,000, but as the condition was subsequently waived the point is without importance. It is provided that the contract does not include serviceable rails and machinery and to meet the obvious difficulty which might arise in this connection it provides that the machinery and rails regarded by the appellant as serviceable are to be separated from what is regarded as scrap and clearly marked as serviceable by a mining engineer to be employed by her. I should add at this stage that by a later document (Exhibit P 15) it is made clear that scrap iron under the agreement includes scrap cast iron, brass and copper.

[5] There was considerable delay in obtaining the necessary Government permission to go to the Bundi Concession. The respondent's solicitor kept pressing the appellant to obtain this permission and it is only fair to her to say that she seems to have made every effort to do so and the delay in obtaining it was none of her fault. In any event the respondent took no steps to resile from the contract on this count. He had already paid $10,000 by way of deposit under the terms of the agreement and from time to time, the dates are not material, he paid further sums amounting to $12,600 as payments on account.

[6] Ultimately in July, 1954, permission to go to the Concession was obtained from the Police. The respondent had engaged a contractor, named Khoo, who was to perform the work of removing the scrap iron from the Bundi Concession to the mouth of the Kemaman River from where it could be shipped to Singapore and the appellant had engaged a mining engineer named Dinham as her representative. In July, 1954, Khoo and Dinham went up to Bundi and it was probably at this time, although the document itself is dated 11th September, that Dinham made some sort of inventory of the machinery found on the land. He said that this survey "was approached from the negative side" by which I think he meant that he had with him some old inventories and deleted from them such articles as he did not find.

[7] Be that as it may the following month, that is August, 1954, Khoo and Dinham returned to Bundi and Dinham, as the appellant's agent, marked a number o