Sir Alan Huggins C:

The appellant plaintiff sued the respondent for damages for breach of contract and was awarded BD31,440 with interest.The counterclaim for repayment of money paid by the respondent and for sums alleged to be due under another contract was dismissed.The respondent appeals against the judgment on both claim and counterclaim.

The parties were Army Officers serving in the Royal Brunei Armed Forces.The appellant was at the material time the boyfriend of the respondent.He appears to have had a pleasure in motorcars, although he did not have a driving licence.He had acquired an interest in a Mitsubishi car (registered number BE 310) which had been hired in the name of a third party under a hire purchase agreement.Both the appellant and the respondent had used this car, but the appellant wished to acquire a sports car, and he sought the assistance of the respondent in doing so. It is common ground that, in order to overcome the difficulty that the appellant had no driving licence and was, therefore, unable to acquire a vehicle in his own name, he would hire a Toyota MR2 on hire purchase in the name of the respondent.It would be registered in her name until such time as the appellant was granted a driving licence, but his name should then be substituted as that of the registered owner.The finance for the hire purchase of the Toyota was to be provided by the appellant: he was to pay the monthly instalments to the finance company, but there is a dispute as to the provenance of the deposit.The respondent's evidence was that the entire deposit (BD8,500) was likewise to be paid by the appellant.His evidence was that he was to pay only BD1,000 towards the deposit in cash and that the balance of BD7,500 was to come from the price to be paid by the respondent for a transfer to her of the appellant's interest and obligations under the hire purchase agreement relating to the Mitsubishi, a car which (he said) she had come to love.Indeed, the appellant maintains that the hiring of the Toyota was conditional upon the respondent's putting up the deposit on the Mitsubishi, as he had no other source of funds to pay the deposit on the Toyota.The respondent denies that she agreed to take over the Mitsubishi, but says that she did offer to find a buyer and that upon a sale of that car the sum payable to the appellant therefore would go towards the deposit on the Toyota.She says that she found a buyer (a Miss Kasmah) and that a cheque for BD7,000 (a sum, it should be noted, which was not equal to the balance of the deposit payable in respect of the Toyota) was received from Miss Kasmah and handed to a salesman of the company supplying the Toyota.That cheque was dishonoured.

The hire purchase contract relating to the Toyota was duly executed and, as only BD1,000 had been paid towards the deposit, the vendor sued the respondent for the balance.Judgment was entered against her, for clearly she had no defence.As the appellant did not pay the instalments to the finance company the respondent paid them until June 1991, when she invited the finance company to repossess the Toyota.They did so. The respondent also paid at least one of the instalments which fell due in respect of the Mitsubishi, but she said that she did that not because she was liable as the transferee of the hire purchase obligation but because the appellant asked her to do so. She said that the appellant paid the rest of the instalments.

The Judge believed the evidence of the respondent that she did not agree to buy the Mitsubishi herself but that she was to find a buyer.He rejected the appellant's evidence that the acquisition of the Toyota was conditional upon the respondent's paying BD7,500 towards the deposit and that she would pay that sum on his behalf to the vendor of the Toyota.

The appellant now contends that the finding "that the appellant agreed to buy the [Toyota] regardless of whether the old car was sold or not" was against the weight of the evidence.The