“… that every man should be held to his bargain if there is a concluded agreement and the terms are clear. It is implicit from what the appellant has himself stated in his affidavit, that the sufficiency of 30 days notice was on his mind when he signed the agreement He was therefore fully aware of the stipulations as to notice. The agreement being in writing, parole evidence contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting its terms is inadmissible by virtue of s 92 of the Evidence Ordinance. Equitable relief is out of the question. As Viscount Simonds said in Campbell Discount Co Ltd v Bridge [1962] AC 600, 614:
I must dissent, as Harman LJ did, from the suggestion that there is a general principle of equity which justifies the court in relieving a party to any bargain if in the event it operates hardly against him. In particular cases, for example, of expectant heirs or of fiduciary relationship, a court of equity (and now any court) will if the circumstances justify it, grant relief. So also if there is duress or fraud ‘which unravels all’. In the present case there is nothing which would justify the court in granting relief ….” Tee Than Song v Caltex Oil Malaysia Ltd [1970] 1 MLJ 68 FC per Ong Hock The C.J. (Malaya):
