Issue 2: Again I am not in any way persuaded by the evidence that there was fraudulent misrepresentation by the plaintiff. When the parties saw the solicitor the day before the Agreement was signed, the solicitor verified with the defendant the terms of the Agreement. I also accept from the solicitor's evidence that before the Agreement was executed his suggestion to the defendant to seek separate legal advice was declined. It is not the first occasion that the solicitor has attended to the defendant on land transactions. I accept that there was suggestion of land exchange, that the suggestion came from the defendant and the plaintiff was prepared to negotiate it if she pays back the $100,000. I accept the evidence of the solicitor that she did not ask the solicitor about deeds of exchange. I find it absurd that the plaintiff agreed to exchange his then two recently constructed flats with an old rundown house. It is even more absurd to suggest that the plaintiff an estate businessman agreed to pay $100,000 to the defendant for her unlimited and unconditional use until such time the plaintiff transfers his land to the defendant as part of the land exchange deal. To accept the allegation of the defendant is suggesting that the plaintiff's business brains have been corroded by the love affair. She has openly stated in her written statement that she was used,

"I trusted him, I was faithful, I was his wife in way. A wife away from his legal wife. I played my part as instructed but now I know and realized what a wasted 10 years."

QUESTION

Need clarification on this issue please