Appellant offered to lease the respondent property for 15 years and the respondent accepted. The letter of offer was headed "subject to contract." It would appear that the date of commencement of the lease was not agreed upon.

Respondent had suggested the 1st of May 1982 as the commencement date when physical possession of the property was to be given to the appellant. There was express reply by the appellant to this invitation.

The appellant caused several structural amendments to be effected on the property to suit its banking requirements, work was still in progress by the 1st of May 1982.

On the 18th of May, the parties held a meeting at the site of the property in order to agree on what parts of the premises should form part of the leased property and in consequence of this further structural adjustments were made to accommodate the appellants electrical generating set. The appellant twice caused inspections to be carried out on the property to ascertain it's suitability of the property. The appellant then wrote a letter to the respondents calling off the ''negotiations".

The respondent sued for "breach of contract" successfully. On appeal by the appellant, the Court of Appeal after having considered the totality of the correspondence between the parties concluded that the appellant had accepted the commencement date suggested by the respondent, and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The trial court in coming to its conclusion construed only two of such documents.

Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court on the principal ground that there was no concluded contract between the parties because the commencement date of the lease was not agreed upon and as such the appellant could not be bound.