46 In this matter, I have not formed an adverse view of the credit of any of the principal witnesses, Mr Penna and Mr and Mrs Seely. I did not hear from Mrs Penna but it appears that she took no active part in the affairs of the Nursing Home other than, perhaps, to supply a signature to the foot of the agreement for lease. Some of the events under consideration occurred many years ago and detailed recollection would be unlikely. It does not surprise me that Mr Penna has a general recollection of events which occurred and of matters discussed in the early part of 1983. He recalls the effect of what was discussed. It does not surprise me, however that he is unable to recall particular conversations. On the other hand, Mr Seely was able to recall very little of the effect of what was said in 1983 but he did recall some things. As a practical matter, I think that Mr Penna had the edge here. He was a trained lawyer, although not practising at the time. He was familiar with the general terms and conditions of a lease. He was able to conceptualise the terms of an agreement and would not find it difficult to have a general recollection of an agreement for sale or lease of property and of its principal terms and conditions. On the other hand, Mr Seely was not a trained lawyer; nor was he an experienced businessman, the Nursing Home project being the first, or at all events the first major project undertaken by him. In these circumstances, I would not expect him to retain a clear understanding of the arrangements made between the plaintiff and the defendants, even if he had a reasonable understanding of what was planned at the outset. I find that Mr Penna's version of the 1983 agreement between the parties to be the more likely one to have occurred. I prefer his evidence on the topic.