The court considered whether the agreement between the parties was limited to the period of 30 days, the terms of the contract were modified, there was a breach of contract and Whether the plaintiff is entitled to his Title deed before the repayment of the loan by the Defendant. The court held that Despite the knowledge of the new terms, he executed the power of Attorney giving to the defendant authority to use the plaintiff’s Title Deed without setting any time limit. He must be taken to have tacitly accepted the new terms. That the Plaintiff by his conduct led the defendant who believed him to act on the belief that the Plaintiff had agreed that his Title deed would not be returned until when the loan was fully repaid.