Ong (Malaya) CJ:

The judgment herein appealed against was reported recently in the Malayan Law Journal ([1972] 1 MLJ 35 ); otherwise there should have been no need for this written judgment.The simple issue before the High Court was purely a question of fact: Was there any consideration for the deed to support the respondent's promise? In our opinion the facts disclosed in evidence readily provided a clear answer.

The key to the Judge's decision may be summed up in his own words:-

At the time Exh. A. 10 was executed the plaintiffs' debtors were the estates and not the defendant.There could then be no forbearance to sue as against the defendant.... The plaintiffs knew, and I do so hold, that the defendant was an agent for the estates and was not acting as a principal in respect of the supplies made to the estates."

The material facts were wholly overlooked.First, the nature of the respondent's business may be seen from his letterheads: "Visiting Agents, secretaries, Dealers in all kinds of Planting Materials, Estate Suppliers and Contractors." Secondly, the course of business followed at all relevant times in the transactions between the parties was set out clearly in an admi