Salleh Abas FJ:

This is an appeal from the decision of Gunn Chit Tuan, J The facts are as follows:

The Facts:

The respondent, one Alan McKnight, was a squadron leader in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). In January 1978 he was just posted to the RAAF base at Butterworth and expected to be there for the next three years. Under an agreement between his Government and the Malaysian Government, the respondent as a serviceman was entitled to purchase in Malaysia a duty-free car for local use provided that the car would be taken out of Malaysia at the end of his tour of duty, and if the same car was imported to Australia he was also entitled to an Australian import duty exemption. As he enjoyed tax exemptions from both countries, i.e., Malaysia and Australia, he decided to buy a car which he could take back to and use in Australia. But he must buy a car which conformed to the Australian Design Regulations (ADRs); otherwise it could not be registered in Australia, in particular in New South Wales and Victoria, where he expected to be reposted.

Having made up his mind to buy such a car he contacted the appellants' salesman named Mr. Thomas, and after finding the services of this salesman rather unsatisfactory, he was attended to by another salesman, named Mr. Bobby Sze. After two meetings with Mr. Sze on 5 and 6 January 1978, the respondent signed a Buyer's Order Exhibit D1, (in the judgment referred to as the Order) on 9 January 1978, whereby he committed himself to buy a white Datsun 260C Station Wagon at an agreed price of RM17,7129.54. Six conditions were printed on the reverse side of the Order, one of which, being relevant to this case, is condition No. 5, which is as follows:

No guarantee or warranty of any kind whatsoever is given by the Company in respect of the vehicle, the subject of the order, unless such guarantee and/or warranty is separately stipulated in writing hereto, but the Buyer/Hirer shall be entitled to the benefit of the Manufacturer's warranty.

However, prior to the signing of the Order, during the first meeting on 5 January 1978 the respondent informed Mr. Sze that he wanted to buy a car that must conform to the ADRs as he wished to take it back to Australia. Mr. Sze replied that he could sell such a car but that he would have to import it first from its manufacturers in Japan. In the second meeting on 6 January 1978 Mr. Sze informed the respondent that he had cabled Japan for delivery of the car at Singapore and in the third meeting on 9 January 1978 Mr. Sze pulled out a document - which he purported to be a cable - from his brief case and read it out to the respondent to the effect that Nissan, the manufacturers, was taking out a car from its Australian assembly line and shipping it to Singapore. This document was never shown to the respondent, nor did he insist upon seeing it. To ensure that the car would be registered in Australia, the respondent insisted upon a plate called a compliance plate or a letter from the manufacturers guaranteeing or indicating that the vehicle complied with the ADRs. Mr. Sze said that the car he was ordering for the respondent would have no compliance plate but he would give the respondent such guarantee letter from the manufacturers when the car would be delivered to him. It was on the basis of these conversations with Mr. Sze and persuaded by his conduct that the respondent signed the Order.

Finally, a white Datsun 260C Station Wagon was delivered to the respondent on 3 May 1978 and the price paid. But the car did not comply with ADRs as earlier promised. This is clearly proved by the manufacturers' letter dated 12 June 1978 written in response to an inquiry by the respondent dated 5 June 1978 after he had discovered that the appellants had become unco-operative and unhelpful. Attempts at obtaining a guarantee letter also proved unsuccessful. In the meantime the respondent was reposted to Australia and as he could not take the car back with him because of noncom