With regard to issue one, it was found that there was an oral agreement that the appellant would use the vehicle and pay to the respondent the agreed sum, which the appellant failed to pay on demand.
With regard to issue two, the appellant argued that he made no use of the car on account of its expired license. It was submitted that the appellant was estopped from claiming none use of the car because he chose to disappear with it without informing the owner about the expiry of the license, yet it was meant for business purposes.
Accordingly, the appellant was found in breach of contract.
Concerning remedies, the court awarded damages for loss of earnings, and in form of compensation to the respondent as a result of breach of contract by the appellant.
The appeal was therefore dismissed against the appellant for lack of merit.