JUDGMENT

Chong Siew Fai CJ (Sabah & Sarawak):

The postponement on 11 June 1999 enabled us to deliberate more closely the submissions of counsel for both sides in the light of the evidence adduced in this case.

Respecting the correspondences attacked by counsel for the appellant, they were classified as follows:

(a) Appeal Record (A.R.) 300C, AR 300D and AR 300E which counsel impugned both as to their makings and their contents, and

(b) AR 251, AR 275 and AR 277 respecting which formal proof was dispensed with but their contents were called in question.

(a) AR 300C was a letter dated 3 October 1988 purported to be from the respondent, Anvest Corporation Sdn. Bhd. ("Anvest") to Appraisal (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (Estate Agent) agreeing to purchase the land in question on certain conditions and requesting to keep Anvest's identity confidential.

(b) Both AR 300D and 300E dated 4 October 1988 and 5 October 1988 respectively were purported to be from the Estate Agent to Miss Kheoh And Yeng (PW2) of Anvest. In AR 300D, the Estate Agent informed Miss Kheoh, inter alia, that they (the Estate Agent), as instructed, had forwarded $1,000 to the "landowner" and did not reveal the purchaser's i