Prologue:

This JUDGMENT projects what would have been my decision had the parties failed to settle their case on 21.12.2006.

On the 21.12.2006 counsel for the defendant Encik Mohd Faizul informed the court that the parties had settled on their terms which were duly recorded by the court.

This judgment reflects what I would have decided had the parties failed to settle its suit. It is therefore ex post facto and is not binding on the parties.

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

OLEH YANG ARIF HAKIM DATO' KANG HWEE GEE

The plaintiffs claim against the defendant is for loss it suffered in consequence of the defendant's breach of warranty in a purported sale and purchase of a land by an imposter who claimed to be the registered proprietor and whom the defendant had acted as solicitor.

The defendant took out a third party claim for indemnity and contribution against the third party, the solicitor who acted for the purchaser.

The following facts are not in dispute:

Plaintiffs claim against the defendant is based on breach of warranty of authority under a contract for the Sale and Purchase Agreement between the plaintiff and a person who had falsely claimed to be the registered proprietor of the land.

The d