sort between it and the offer. He cited the case of Orient Bank (Nig) Plc V. Bilante International Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (pt. 515) 37. In the case under consideration, in terms of conduct of parties, words and documents between them, the only link of the Plaintiff to the sale or purchaser of shops in EFAB mall is the presentation of photocopy of a bank teller Exhibits AA1 & AA2 to the 1st Defendant there is no evidence that the 1st Defendant issued a receipt to the Plaintiff acknowledging the payment he allegedly made in respect of (4) shops or that the shop numbers he claimed he paid for were indicated, rather it was additional payment in respect of 6 no shops that were received by the 1st Defendant and receipted of payment was accordingly made and forwarded to the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff did not pay the balance of the purchase price and therefore did not fill any form to that effect. Counsel urged the Court to hold that there was no contract or contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant which this Court can enforce. On issue 2: whether the Plaintiff acted as an agent in the process and procedure leading to the purchase of 6 no of shops by the 2nd Defendant?, Counsel referred the Court to the case of Bamgboye V. Unilorin (1999) 10 NWLR Pt. 622 ratio 2 pg 383 – 384 the Court defined an agent thus: “An agent is one who is authorized to act for or in place of another, a representative. The word “agent” denotes one who acts, a doer etc. who accomplishes a thing or things. The agent normally binds his principal and certainly not himself by the contract he makes, an agent is a person authorized by another to act for him, one entrusted with another’s business. An agent means more or less the same thing as a delegate” Counsel submitted that the PW1 on record said he was not the branch manager of the 2nd Defendant but admitted he was chief operating officer. Whatever his nomenclature may be, there is ample evidence to show that the PW1, acted on behalf of the 2nd Defendant either as agent or messenger in the process and procedure leading to the purchase of the 6 no shops from the 1st Defendant. He further stated that under cross examination by the counsel to 2nd Defendant, PW1 was asked if in his relationship to the 2nd Defendant, you 9