Contract-s-Offer and acceptance-Negotiations and procedures at a meglis .
Appeal a,!d Revision-Issue of fact-Appeal to Court of Appeal

When two parties enter into ail agreement for the sale of a bouie,
and one later tries to abandon the agreement and arranges a meglis to ne-
gotiate the disagreement; whether or not a new agreement was made "t
the meglis is a question of fact to be decided by the court below; and not'
to be disturbed by the Court of Appeal when there is evidence to justify the finding.                                                                                 

* Court: Bell C.J., Owen and David-Davis II

Appeal

December 31, 1929. Bell C.J.: In July 1928 the appellant
agreed to sell to the respondent a house. The appellant received the
price and even, as he himself says, we~t to \ the Zabtia to register the
sale. Before the formalities of registration could be completed the
appellant changed his mind and on July 18, 1928 wrote to the re-
spondent saying that he would not complete the sale and offering to
return the purchase money, £E.130.

Meanwhile the respondent had, on July 17, 1928, made an agree-
ment to sell the house to another person for £E.180.

Attempts were made by the appellant to persuade the respondent
to cancel tbe agreement of sale, and finally on August 17, 1928 a meglis
took place at which it is alleged the plaintiff did consent to cancel the
transaction. A document was .drawn up in which it is stated that the
respondent abandoned the transaction 011 condition that he received
back the purchase money with an addition of £E.8 for expenses, and
on condition that the appellant should pay respondent' £E:SOO if ap-
pellant sold the house to another person without the respondent's con-
sent.

The respondent denies that he consented to abandon' the trans- .
action, and. alleges that if there was any apparent consent on his part
it was obtained by coercion and at any rate was subject to the stipula-
tion that it should be ratified by his lawyer.

The learned judge found that no definite agreement was ever
reached at the meglis.

The appellant in his appeal contends that the learned judge was
wrong in finding that no definite' agreement was reached, and was
wrong in deciding that any pressure which was brought to bear upon
the respondent at the meglis was sufficient to invalidate the agreement
which the appellant says was concluded at the meglis.

The judgement, as I understand it, does not say that the respond-
ent consented to an agreement and that his consent was obtained by
. undue influence or coercion; it says that no definite agreement was

  reached at all.                                                                                             .

There is evidence 'on both sides, Besides the evidence- of the
parties and witnesses, there is on one side the fact that £E.8 was re-
ceived by the respondent (or as he says was thrust upon him), and on

the other side the. fact that although two documents were drawn up
embodying the agreement neither was signed, sealed or thumb marked
by the' plaintiff.

There is no reason to disbelieve totally the story of either one
side or the other as to what took place. The incidents of the parties
shouting at one another, of the parties being taken aside separately by
the mediators, of acceptances being made and withdrawn, of the prep-
aration of the document embodying the agreement are the normal
accompaniments of a meglis. These all exist in this case, but the act
which normally concludes the proceedings, namely the signing of the
documents of agreement did not take place.

The question is whether a definite acceptance was given by the
respondent, or whether there were merely negotiations with tentative
offers and acceptances made and withdrawn without any conclusive
result being arrived at.

This is purely a question of fact. The court decided that there '
was no definite acceptance by the respondent. There is in my opinion
ample evidence on which the court could form this decision, and no
good ground has been. shown why the court of Appeal should interfere.

This disposes of the appeal.

I think it however desirable to comment shortly on the question
of undue influence or coercion on which much. time has been spent.

The part taken by the Mufti is the usual part taken 'by a native
of note and distinction who is generally respected in' attempting to
settle disputes in an amicable manner. To those familiar with the
country this is well understood and I think it regrettable that some of
the statements made about the Mufti's intervention have been made.
It, is no doubt true that the Effendia tried to impress the respondent
and made many ridiculous statements as to what might happen. As
it has been found that no definite agreement was reached it does not
matter whether the respondent was influenced by these statements or
not I have doubts as to whether he was so simple and credulous as
has been suggested.

As regards the cross appeal I do not see any good reason why
the respondent is entitled to anything more than merely nominal dam-
ages. He is in my opinion' fortunate in obtaining a decree for specific
performance when damages would have been an adequate remedy as
be had already purported to re-sell 'the house.