Peh Swee Chin SCJ:

We had allowed the appeal earlier making also certain consequential orders and we now give our reasons.

The appeal arose out of one of those frequent transactions in which parties have negotiated with each other where one party alleges they have reached a definite binding agreement while the other alleges to the contrary viz., they were then still negotiating with each other. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge found a binding and concluded agreement and we differed, hence the appeal was allowed.

The plaintiff, a solicitor in fact practising under the name and style of L.S. Tan & Co., claimed specific performance of an agreement for the sale to him of a few pieces of land by the defendant, (hereafter the said land), the said agreement had been said to be made by a document in the form of a letter dated 10 March 1989 and addressed to the name of the plaintiff's legal firm, (hereafter the said document). It is to be borne in mind that in all the correspondence and the said document, the name of "L.S. Tan & Co." was used instead of the plaintiff's personal name, though in two different drafts of the agreement of sale and purchase to be dealt with