• The Contract between The Road Builder and The British Manufacturer was a valid contract,
• but since it was in English and the plaintiff said they didn't understand it, it did not apply.
• The Court ruled that The Sales Company showed it represented The Manufacturer by threatening to cancel The Contract if The Road Builder did not pay on time.
• The e-mail from The Manufacturer notifying The Road Builder it would cancel the order if payment was not made in 15 days could have been faked.
• The Court ruled that the brochure advertising delivery of products to Thailand meant The Sales Company was responsible for delivery and should pay the late delivery fine.

• The Sales Company asked the Court of Appeals to examine closely The Contract between The Manufacturer and The Road Builder
• and consider that The Sales Company was not a signatory and neither gained nor lost from that contract, since it had already been paid out of the non refundable deposit for its service in placing the order from the sales brochure.
• Therefore, its sole role was that of an adviser, and the advice in the e-mail to The Road Builder to pay the balance due according to The Contract to avoid the possible delay or cancellation of the order, was both sound and proper.
• The Road Builder had ample time and resources to ask questions in Thai about the English contract or have it translated completely.
• The claimed ignorance of English as an excuse was only made by The Road Builder after it had been fined for not completing the road on time.
• The Court's opinion that the e-mail claiming the payment wasn't late may have been "faked" is contradicted by a copy of the check from The Road Builderr which was part of the evidence in the trial and showed the payment was in fact made 45 days later than the contract deadline, confirming that the e-mail was "true".
• Therefore, The Sales Company asked the Court of Appeals to overturn the Lower Court's Opinion and find for the Defendant.