IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA
AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2007/0569
DANIEL ANDREW DUBISSETTE
GRENADA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
Mr. Benjamin Hood for the Claimant
Ms. Deborah St. Bernard for the Defendant
2020: October 8
[Re-Issued on 1st April 2021]
 GLASGOW, J.: This matter is of much vintage having commenced on 10th December, 2007 and the facts relate to a mortgage obtained in the year 2000. The claimant, Daniel Dubissette (“Mr. Dubissette”) in this proceeding seeks specific performance of an offer letter dated 28th December, 1999 made by him, his wife, Valerie Dubissette (“Mrs. Dubissette”) and the defendant, Grenada Co-operative Bank Limited (“the Bank”) pursuant to a mortgage agreement with the Bank.
 In December 1999, the bank approved a mortgage for Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette to raise the sum of $264,000.00. The Dubissettes wished to borrow the money to construct a dwelling house at Calivigny in the parish of Saint George in the State of Grenada. Subsequent to the approval, the bank prepared an offer letter dated 28th December, 1999, with terms and conditions.
 Mr. Gordon V. Steele, the Managing Director of the Bank signed the offer letter. The offer letter recited the loan amount of $264,000.00, the rate of interest at 11% per annum, and stated the term of repayment as $1,688.74 per month for a period of 25 years. Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette signed the offer letter on 25th February 2000 and thereby accepted the terms of the offer.
 Prior to signing the offer letter, Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette executed a Deed of Mortgage (“Mortgage Deed”) on 16th February, 2000 with the Bank. The Mortgage Deed recited the loan amount of $264,000.00 at a rate of 11% per annum, covenants and the properties belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette which were used as security.
 What is noteworthy is that the Mortgage Deed did not state or include the monthly repayment amount. The offer letter is the instrument that states the monthly repayment sum. Thereafter, the bank disbursed the loan sum to Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette. Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette held a joint savings account at the bank. The bank began debiting automated monthly sums of $2,578.88 from that joint savings account which sum was credited to the loan account. The bank continued the automated monthly debits from the Dubissette’s account for several years.
 Mr. Dubissette pleads that, in or around 2003, he discovered some irregularities on the account that led him to seek rectification from the Bank. He claims that the Bank informed him that the monthly repayment in the sum of $1,688.74 was an error and they would continue to deduct the monthly sum of $2,578.88 from the joint savings account.
 Mr. Dubissette being dissatisfied with the Bank’s response filed this claim against the Bank some 4 years later, on 10th December, 2007. In the claim form, Mr. Dubissette seeks the following relief:
(1) Specific performance of the agreement between the parties evidenced by the offer letter 28th December, 1999;
(2) An account of all sums deducted from the account of the claimant purportedly pursuant to the mortgage agreement between the parties;
(3) Damages for illegal deductions from the account of the claimant;
(4) Damages for loss of business and damage to the financial reputation of the claimant;
(5) Interest pursuant to section 27 of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Act Cap 336 of the 1990 Laws of Grenada;
(6) Further or other relief;
 On 1st February 2008, the Bank filed a notice of application seeking leave to file its defence out of time. On 2nd May 2008, Henry, J granted the leave application and ordered that the defence be filed within seven days of the order. The Bank filed its defence on 5th May 2008, denying the allegations, save those that were admitted.
 The Bank averred that the term of payment in the sum of $1,688.74 contained in the offer letter was an error and the correct sum ought to have been $2,578.88. The Bank stated that the monthly repayment sum of $1,688.74 for the mortgage of $264,000.00 at an interest rate of 11% per annum and for a period of 25 years, is insufficient to cover the interest repayment and also the principal.
 On 29th May 2008, Mr. Dubissette applied for summary judgment on the main ground that the Bank had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue, among other grounds. The application was heard and summary judgment was entered for the Bank on 23rd January 2009 dismissing the claim. Mr. Dubissette being dissatisfied sought leave to appeal the order of Henry J which was granted by the Court of Appeal on 9th October 2009.
 Mitchell JA heard the interlocutory appeal on paper and on 8th August 2013 held that the appeal is allowed and the claim is reinstated, inter alia. The matter was therefore remitted to the high court for case management in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 2000.
 The issues before this court are:
(1) Whether section 114 of the Evidence Act is applicable.
(2) Whether Mr. Dubissette is entitled to an order of specific performance.
(3) Whether Mr. Dubissette is estopped from relying on the monthly repayment sum of $1,688.74 as a term of the offer letter.
Witness statement of Daniel Dubissette
 On 30th July 2018, Mr. Dubissette filed his witness statement and stated as follows:
(1) In or around the month of January 2000, he and Mrs. Dubissette went to the Bank to have a meeting with Ms. Florence Williams, who was the Loans Manager, to review their application for a loan. The purpose of the loan was to finance the construction of their house.
(2) With respect to the offer letter, he states that it included the loan amount of $264,000.00, the rate of interest at 11% per annum and the terms of repayment, among other things. The offer letter stated the repayment sum of $1,688.4 inclusive of interest and that it shall be paid to the Bank to service the loan. The total term of the loan was 25 years.
(3) That after reviewing and discussing the offer letter, he and Mrs. Dubissette were satisfied with the terms of the offer letter and signed it. The bank disbursed the loan sum as agreed and they began to construct the house. Mr. Dubissette states that during construction of the house, the parties agreed that the Dubissettes would only pay the interest in instalments on the sums drawn down for construction.
(4) The house was completed in the latter part of the year 2000. In the year 2001, he and Mrs. Dubissette began paying the mortgage in full. He made monthly deposits to the account to ensure that the payments were being deducted. Sometime in the year 2003, he noticed that the bank dishonoured some of his cheques for insufficient funds.
(5) He met with Ms. Florence Williams at the Bank and discovered that the bank was deducting the sum of $2,578.88 the joint savings account instead of the sum disclosed in the offer letter. He states that Ms. Williams informed him that an error was made on the offer letter, however, the correct figure was being taken out.
(6) Mr. Dubissette states that neither him nor his wife, Mrs. Dubissette were notified that such an error was made. He states that the Bank informed him that they were not going to correct the error and they would continue to deduct the amount. Further, he states that this account was depleted and funds from another account which he used as a retirement savings were being deducted. Mr. Dubissette states that he never received bank statements from the Bank and later realised they were being sent to an address in Tempe instead of his P.O. Box address.
(7) Further, Mr. Dubissette states that he had meetings with Mr. Steele and Mr. Duncan on separate occasions. Mr. Steele informed him that nothing could be done. Mr. Dubissette being dissatisfied with the Bank’s response decided to file the claim for breach of contract and compensation.
Witness statement of Jennifer Robertson
 Mrs. Robertson states that:
(1) She is the acting Executive Manager, Risk at the Bank and prior to her appointment she held positions with credit control centre of the bank since June, 2006. She also held the position of Manager’s Assistant, Credit between the periods June 2006 to September 2008.
(2) During her stint as Manager’s Assistant, Credit she met with Mr. Dubissette in November, 2006 to have discussions in relation to the settlement of his arrears on his monthly payments. The arrears amounted to the sum of $13,662.49.
(3) Following their meeting, she prepared a memorandum addressed to the then General Manager, Mr. Gordon Steele. In that memorandum she reported that although the monthly repayment for the mortgage in the sum of $2,578.88 was entered on the Bank’s data entry system and was being deducted from Mr. Dubissette’s account since February 2001, it was brought to her attention by Mr. Dubissette that the monthly repayment in the offer letter was stated as $1,688.74.
(4) An amortization of the mortgage clearly shows that the monthly repayment in the sum of $1,688.74 as shown in the offer letter was a mathematical error. Neither the Bank nor Mr. Dubissette was aware of the error. Her analysis of the amortization also revealed that it would impossible for the mortgage loan of $264,000.00 at an annual interest rate of 11% for a period of 25 years to be repaid by monthly payments of $1,688.74 and that such sum would be insufficient to cover the principal and interest payments.
(5) She notes that in 2004, Mr. Dubissette requested a reduction in the interest rate of the mortgage from 11% to 9.5% which was approved by the Bank in May 2004. However, she discovered in October 2006 that the monthly repayment sum of $2,578.88 continued. The bank rectified this error by debiting the mortgage in the sum of $7,161.56 and reducing the monthly repayment to $2,330.36.
(6) Following the reduction of the interest rate, Mrs. Dubissette made arrangement with the Bank to clear the arrears and to assume full responsibility of servicing the mortgage, including setting up an automatic monthly repayment from a designated account. The Bank being satisfied with the performance of the mortgage further reduced the interest rate in 2016 to 6% per annum.
Witness statement of Willvorn Grainger
 Mr. Grainger states that:-
(1) He has been employed with the Bank since 2005 and is presently the Executive Manager, Retail Banking, a position that he has held since February 2014.
(2) Prior to his present position, he held the posts of Manager’s Assistant, Credit in 2008 and of Manager Retail Banking at the Grenville and then Spiceland Mall branches.
(3) His experience in the banking sector has afforded him the opportunity to familiarise himself with procedures for the processing of loans, including application, approval, disbursement and repayments.
(4) In relation to the offer letter, he notes the sum of $264,000.00 at an interest rate of 11% per annum with a repayment period of 25 years and a monthly repayment of $1,688.74, will not be sufficient to cover the principal and interest payments.
(5) He notes that the correct monthly repayment of $2,578.88 was entered on the Bank’s data entry system for the monthly deduction from Mr. Dubissette’s account which was deducted since the initial repayment in February 2001.
(6) Based on the amortization analysis of the mortgage, it is his view that the sum of $1,688.74 was a mathematical error which neither the Bank nor Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette were aware of at the time of the letter. Therefore, the monthly repayment sum of $2,578.88 was deducted from Mr. Dubissette’s account for 5 years.
(7) The fundamental terms of a loan are: the sum agreed to be advanced to the borrower, the rate of interest at which the sum would be repaid and the term of the years for repayment.
(8) The bank prepared and sent monthly statements to Mr. Dubissette to show the actual deductions for his monthly repayment of the loan in the sum of $2,578.88. Mr. Grainger also confirms the evidence of Mrs. Robertson that Mr. Dubissette requested a reduction in the rate of interest from 11% to 9.5% which was granted in May 2004. The bank reduced the monthly repayment sum to $2,330.36. Further, he is aware that the Bank further reduced the interest rate to 6% in 2016.
Mr. Dubissette’s submissions
 Counsel for Mr. Dubissette, Mr. Benjamin Hood submits that:
Whether the Bank can rely on the repayment sum of $2,578.88 and the common law principle of estoppel
(1) With respect to the Bank’s reliance on the repayment sum of $2,578.88, Counsel states that Mr. Dubissette relies on section 114 of the Evidence Act . It is his case that the Bank cannot rely on the sum of $2,578.88 as the court has no evidence before it to challenge the repayment sum of $1,688.74 as contained in the offer letter.
(2) The main issue for consideration by the court is whether there are any grounds to support a variation of the terms of the offer letter in all the circumstances of the case.
(3) The only issue of estoppel which the court can consider is whether Mr. Dubissette by his conduct impliedly agreed or acquiesced to the variation of the term of the offer letter. He states that for the court to embark on this approach it must first set aside the application of the statutory estoppel in favour of the Mr. Dubissette and apply the common law principle of estoppel.
(4) The common law estoppel by acquiescence may only arise if the Bank is first able to overcome the operation of the statutory estoppel in favour of Mr. Dubissette.
Whether Mr. Dubissette is estopped in law from asserting the repayment sum of $1,688.74 as opposed to the repayment sum of $2,578.88.
(5) Mr. Hood submits that for the estoppel to arise the following questions are to be considered:
(a) Whether Mr. Dubissette was informed or ought to have known of the deduction of $2,578.00 from his chequing account at the Bank;
(b) Whether Mr. Dubissette with that knowledge or imputed knowledge did not to prevent the deduction of $2,578.88 from his account;
(c) Whether Mr. Dubissette with that knowledge or imputed knowledge had the power to prevent or stop the said deduction of $2,578.88.
The monthly repayment sum
(6) The monthly repayment sum of $2,578.88 is not conceded for the following reasons:
(a) There was no disclosure to Mr. Dubissette regarding how the said monthly repayment sum was calculated.
(b) That it is grossly unfair to impute to him the knowledge of the manner in which the monthly repayment sums were calculated.
(c) There is no reference to the manner in which the interest was applied by the Bank whether simple or compound interest or whether the interest in calculated on the reducing principal.
(d) The correctness of the monthly repayment sum is therefore not open to be canvassed by the Bank having not made any proper disclosure to Mr. Dubissette on the matter. The monthly repayment sum ought to relate to matters that are apparent on the contract and not to some mathematical calculation to which the Bank is privy.
(7) Mr. Dubissette never received monthly statements from the Bank. It is only upon approaching Mrs. Robertson that Mr. Dubissette realised that the repayment sum of $ 2,578.88 was being deducted from his account which led him to demand a refund of the monies.
(8) During the period of Mrs. Robertson’s investigation, this was the first time that the bank raised the allegation of the monthly statements. The allegation was also raised in the application of the Bank to have its defence filed out of time. Therefore, Mr. Dubissette was not able to prevent or stop the deduction of $2,578.88 from his account at the Bank until a deduction based on a lower interest rate was applied.
(9) A contract in law was formed as soon as Mr. Dubissette signed the offer letter from the Bank. There was an offer from the Bank and an unqualified acceptance of the offer by Mr. Dubissette. Therefore, the repayment sum of $1,688.74 was a term of the contract and the application or consideration of any other repayment amounts to a variation of the contract between the parties. Therefore, it is submitted that Mr. Dubissette is not estopped in the circumstances of the case.
(10) Further, Mr. Dubissette urges the court not to find that he had a duty to check his monthly instalments to ascertain whether they were accurate and in conformity with any contractual obligation. Counsel relies on learning from Halsburys Laws of England . Counsel also relies on learning from the Privy Council authority of Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd and others and the House of Lords authority of M’Knezie (Pauper) v British Linen Company .
The Bank’s submissions
 Counsel for the Bank, Ms. Deborah St. Bernard submits that:-
Whether there was a common intention of the parties to the contract for a loan of $264,000.00 at an interest rate of 11% per annum, with monthly repayments for a period of 25 years.
(1) In determining whether there was a common intention, the court must examine the contract and the surrounding circumstances as expounded by Lord Denning in the House of Lord authority of London County Council v Henry Boot & Sons Limited. In that case, the court opined that an important factor was whether, to all outward appearances, there was an agreement by the parties on the terms that bind them.
(2) With respect to this case, the terms that bind the parties are the mortgage sum of $264,000.00 at an interest rate of 11% per annum, for a term of 25 years. The mortgage deed also contained these fundamental terms, with a proviso that the rate of interest can be varied at any time by the Bank.
Whether the monthly repayment sum was a mathematical derivative of the sum loaned, the interest rate and the term of years repayable.
(3) The amortization of the mortgage is the mathematical process involving the sum loaned, the rate of interest, and the term of years that dictates the monthly repayment sum required over the period for the fulfilment of the loan. Both parties were not aware that the figure provided in the offer letter was an error on the Bank’s part and it was an honest mistake.
(4) The term never affected the implementation of the contract as the loan was disbursed by the Bank to Mr. and Mrs. Dubissette and the correct monthly repayment sum was deducted for a period in excess of 5 years.
(5) The plea for specific performance must be considered in the context of the finding of Bacon VC in Barrow v Scammell that the courts of equity have relieved against honest mistakes in contracts where specific performance of them would impose a burden not contemplated and which would be an injustice to fix. Counsel submits that Mr. Dubissette is seeking an unrealistic remedy of a repayment of a loan which was never intended or contemplated by the parties when the loan was concluded.
Whether the Bank acted wrongfully in deducting the correct sum of $ 2,578.88 form Mr. Dubissette’s account.
(6) The courts have found that specific performance is a discretionary remedy and that the court is entitled to refuse an order for specific performance on the ground of a mistake of defendant. Counsel refers the court to the authorities of The Marquis Townshend v Strangroom and the judgment of Brett CJ in Tamplin v James, where the courts opined that an honest mistake is not sufficient to invalidate the contract at common law.
Whether Mr. Dubissette is estopped from claiming that the Bank ought to have deducted the sum of $1,668.74 monthly from his account.
(7) Mr. Dubissette ought not to succeed in his plea for the repayment of sum of $1,668.74 as contained in the offer letter as both parties were unaware at the time that this sum was incorrect and insufficient to meet the repayment of the loan. Further, the Bank has deducted the correct payment which was correctly entered on his computerised system for the monthly repayment for the loan. The Bank issued monthly statements and sent them to Mr. Dubissette’s last known address. Mr. Dubissette acquiesced to the monthly deduction for a period in excess of 5 years. Moreover, in March 2004, Mr. Dubissette sought and obtained reduction in the mortgage loan’s interest rate. Up to this time, Mr. Dubissette never raised the issue about the monthly repayment sum. The monthly repayment sum was also insufficient to meet the repayments of the mortgage. Therefore, Mr. Dubissette has failed to establish that he relied on the incorrect figure stated in the offer letter. Counsel cites the House of Lords authority in Mannai Investment Co. Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd where the court ruled that an offeree must have known what the offeror meant despite a mistake in the offer and that the offeree must be bound by what was really intended.
Whether Mr. Dubissette is entitled to damages for loss as a result of the Bank’s deductions
(8) The Bank submits that all sums deducted from Mr. Dubissette’s account were pursuant to the loan repayments in accordance with the amount loan, interest rate and the term of years. Therefore, the Bank submits that they are not responsible for any loss, if any, suffered by Mr. Dubissette. Further, Mr. Dubissette has not provided any particulars of cheques he presented for clearing, with the requisite amounts in his account resulting in any wrongful actions of dishonouring such cheques on the part of the Bank.
Whether section 114 of the Evidence Act is applicable
 Counsel for Mr. Dubissette, Mr. Hood submitted that the court has no evidence before it to consider a challenge to the monthly repayment sum of $1,688.74 as contained in the offer letter. Mr. Hood relies on section 114 of the Evidence Act (“the Act”) to support his argument. Section 114 provides:
“When one person has by his or her declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, otherwise than but for that belief he or she would have acted, neither he or she nor his or her representative in interest shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself or herself and such person or his or her representative in interest to deny the truth of that thing.” (Bold emphasis mine)
 I do not see how this section aids Mr. Dubissette in his argument that the Bank cannot rely on the monthly repayment sum of $2,578.88. The language of the section is not opaque. The statutory estoppel arises where the act or omission is caused or permitted intentionally. Mr. Dubissette has not pleaded any allegation nor produced any evidence to show that the bank deliberately or intentionally induced or misrepresented the $1,688.74 repayment sum in the offer letter. The entirety of the evidence indicates that neither party was aware of the error until a numbers of years had elapsed.
 The Bank correctly asserts that neither mortgagee nor mortgagor was aware of the error at the time of the signing of the offer letter. Counsel for Mr. Dubissette, Mr. Hood, at paragraphs 12 to 13 of his submissions acknowledges that it was upon meeting Mrs. Robertson that Mr. Dubissette realised that the calculation of the monthly repayment sum contained an error. He thereafter commenced his demands for a refund from the Bank. Mr. Dubissette’s evidence is that sometime in the year 2004 he visited the Bank and discovered that the bank was deducting the amount of $ 2,578.88 from his account. He stated that Mrs. Williams informed him that there was an error in the offer letter.
 It is Mrs. Robertson’s evidence that after the meeting with Mr. Dubissette in November 2006 she raised this issue with the General Manager by way of a memo regarding the monthly repayment of $1,688.74 stated in the offer letter. This uncontroverted evidence also underscores the fact that that none of the parties was aware of this mistake at the time of execution of the offer letter. The Bank also raised in its evidence that the monthly repayment sum of $1,668.74 is insufficient to cover the interest and the principal repayments of the mortgage. In fact, a cursory assessment of the loan at a monthly repayment sum of $1,668.74 reveals that this sum would be insufficient to liquidate the mortgage in the agreed period of 25 years. Rather, the mortgage would continue well beyond that period as the monthly repayment would be inadequate to reduce the interest and not begin to adjust or repay the principal. This would lead to an absurd result that was never in the contemplation of the parties at the time of execution of the offer letter.
 I am convinced that the Bank could not have intended that the repayment period continue in perpetuity when the offer letter clearly stated a period of 25 years. Moreover, it proves that the Bank never intentionally contemplated the monthly repayment sum of $1,688.74 at the time when the parties concluded the offer letter. I find therefore and rule that section 114 of the Act does not apply to the circumstances of this case.
Whether Mr. Dubissette is entitled to an order of specific performance
 Mr. Dubissette in his claim dated 10th December 2007, claimed for an order of specific performance of the agreement between the parties evidenced by the letter of agreement dated 28th December, 1999. Specific performance is an equitable remedy that is applied by the courts to enforce agreements between parties. The purpose of this remedy is intended to put both parties in the same position as if the contract have been performed. However, this equitable remedy is discretionary and may be refused on the ground of mistake, inter alia.
 Bacon VC’s elucidation in Barrow v Scammell as cited by Ms. St. Bernard is instructive on this point:
“It cannot be disputed that Courts of Equity have at all times relieved against honest mistakes in contracts, where the literal effect and the specific performance of them would be to impose a burden not contemplated, and which it would be against all reason and justice to fix, upon the person who, without the imputation of fraud, has inadvertently committed an accidental mistake; and also where not to correct the mistake would be to give an unconscionable advantage to either party” (Bold emphasis mine)
 The Bank’s evidence is that an amortization of the mortgage in the sum of $264,000.00 with an annual interest rate of 11% to be repaid over 25 years shows that the sum of $1,688.74 was clearly a mathematical error that was not apparent to any of the parties to the mortgage.
 Ms. Robertson stated that the monthly sum of $1,688.74 would be insufficient to cover the principal and interest payments. If I am to accept the amortization table as correct, it shows that in this case the payment of a monthly sum of $ 1,688.74 over a period of 25 years would not suffice to reduce the principal together with the interest accrued. In fact, the principal and interest will significantly increase and will not have the desired effect for both parties.
 Mr. Dubissette in his evidence stated that it was only the year 2004 that he realised that the sum of $2,578.88 was being deducted from his account. If I were to take his evidence as truth it would also lead me to conclude that there was a clear mistake in the monthly repayment sum of $1,688.88 in the offer letter. Mr. Dubissette has not pleaded or has led any evidence to suggest that he was induced into signing the offer letter. There is no allegation that he relied on the monthly repayment sum of $1,688.88.
 James LJ in Tamplin v James opined that:
“Perhaps some of the cases on this subject go too far, but for the most part the cases where a defendant has escaped on the ground of a mistake not contributed to by the plaintiff, have been cases where a hardship amounting to injustice would have been inflicted upon him by holding him to his bargain, and it was unreasonable to hold him to it.” (Bold emphasis mine)
 The evidence before me demonstrates that there was an honest mistake on the part of the Bank. As stated earlier, it could not have been contemplated or intended by any of the parties that the mortgage would continue beyond 25 years. The terms of the arrangement are evidently unworkable if the court is to grant an order for specific performance since, for one thing, the agreed repayment period cannot be met at the sum stated in the offer letter. An order for specific performance is refused in the circumstances.
Whether Mr. Dubissette by his conduct is estopped from relying on the said monthly repayment sum of$1,688.74 as a term of the offer letter.
 Mr. Hood grounds his submissions on estoppel in two main categories. Firstly, the bank did not inform Mr. Dubissette and he was not under a duty to know of the monthly deduction of $2,578.88 from his chequing account. Secondly, that Mr. Dubissette did not have the knowledge or power to prevent or stop the said monthly deduction of $2,578.88 from said chequing account.
 Albert Redhead JA in the court of appeal authority of Liddie v St. Kitts & Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd. at paragraph 21 of his judgment cited the following passage from the Halsbury’s Laws of England on estoppel:
“The doctrine of estoppel constitutes an important limitation … It operates in two ways. First, there is no genuine consensus between the parties and therefore prima facie there should be no contract, it may nonetheless have effect to prevent a party from denying that consensus with the other party exists. Thus it may enable a party to succeed on a cause of action which, without the estoppel he would have failed.”
 In this case, neither of the parties knew of the mistake in the monthly deduction as contained in the offer letter until years after. Mr. Dubissette states that he only became aware of the $2,578.88 figure until sometime in 2004 according to his pleadings. There is no pleading or suggestion in the statement of claim that Mr. Dubissette objected to the monthly deductions of $2,578.88 from his account at that material time. His only complaint to the Bank at that material time was that his cheques were being dishonoured by the Bank. In fact, in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, Mr. Dubissette admits that the monthly deductions of $2,578.88 went on for several years.
 Mrs. Robertson, a representative of the Bank, states that in November 2006, it was Mr. Dubissette who brought to her attention that the monthly repayment stated in the offer letter which led her to send a memo to the General Manager about the discovery. Further, according to paragraphs 26 to 27 of his witness statement, it was only until late 2006 after he met with both Mr. Richard Duncan and Mr. Steele that he expressed his dissatisfaction with the monthly dedications of $2,578.88. This is some is three years after Mrs. Florence Williams had previously indicated to him that there was an error in his offer letter in or around the year 2003. Mr. Dubissette therefore knew of the error or ought to have known of the error in the monthly deductions. However, his conduct indicates acquiescence in the course of dealings as asserted by the Bank.
 It is therefore, does not aid Mr. Dubissette to suggest, post facto, that the Bank cannot rely on the $2,578.88 monthly deduction. I am of the view that Mr. Dubissette is estopped from relying on the monthly repayment sum of $1,688.74 as contained in the offer by impliedly acknowledging and paying the monthly deductions of $2,578.88 for over five years from February 2001 to late 2006 when he expressed his dissatisfaction to the Bank’s management.
Damages and other relief
 Having reached the conclusions stated above, I find that Mr. Dubissette is not entitled to any of the reliefs that he seeks, including those claimed for specific performance and/or damages.
 For reasons stated above, I order that:
(1) Mr. Dubissette (the claimant) is not entitled to an order of specific performance.
(2) Mr. Dubissette is not entitled to an account of all deductions; damages for illegal deduction; loss of business; damage to reputation.
(3) The claim filed by Mr. Dubissette on 10th December 2007 is dismissed.
(4) The Bank (the defendant) is entitled to costs in the sum of $2000.00.
Raulston L. A. Glasgow
High Court Judge
By the Court