B.I.O. LIMITED. v. DEGRAFT-AIDOO

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.

Abban J. delivered the judgment of the court. The appeal is from the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi, dated 27 July 1977. In 1974 the respondents through their managing director, one Mr. Carlo, consulted the appellant who is a legal practitioner in connection with the sale of caterpillar and its accessories to two gentlemen - Kwame Appiagyei and Kwame Asante. The respondents who were timber inspectors and agents were operating in the Takoradi area. The two gentlemen were also carrying on business as timber contractors.

The respondents intended to sell the caterpillar for ¢30,000 and the two gentlemen wanted to buy it on credit. They deposited title deeds to the building of one of them - Appiagyei - in Kumasi as a security for the payment of the agreed purchase price. The respondents gave the said title deeds to the appellant with instructions to prepare the necessary legal document to cover the transaction between the respondents on one hand and Appiagyei and Asante on the other.

It was obvious that the transaction was one of credit sale and the appellant for some reasons felt it was not in the best interest of the respondents. He therefore advised the respondents to insist on outright sale. The respondents were bent on selling the caterpillar to Appiagyei and Asante on credit. So the appellant's advice did not seem to go down well with them. In the circumstances the appellant again [p.242] advised that the building in Kumasi, as described in the title deeds, should be valued to make sure that it was an adequate security for a debt of ¢30,000.

The respondents having agreed to the latter advice, the appellant sought the service of a valuer in Cape Coast. The valuer set to work and employed other persons in Kumasi to assist him in the valuation exercise. The appellant in the meantime made a draft of the proposed agreement, the final document to be prepared on the receipt of the valuer's report. But before the valuer completed his work, the respondents informed the appellant that the two gentlemen had indicated that they were no longer interested in the caterpillar and so they had withdrawn from the transaction, and that the appellant should put an end to the preparation of the agreement. The transaction having been called off, the respondents requested the appellant to return to the respondents the title deeds (which the respondents had earlier on given to the appellant) for onward transmission to the said two gentlemen.

The a