21 I accept the evidence of Mrs Shaw and I accept the substance of the evidence of Mr Shaw. Although there is some basis for the submission made by Mr Turner, counsel for the defendant, that Mr Shaw showed a tendency to exaggerate some parts of his evidence, there is no reason to doubt the substance of his evidence with respect to the making of the representations. In this respect, Mr Shaw's evidence was corroborated by Mrs Shaw. Mrs Shaw's evidence was totally unshaken in cross-examination. Mr and Mrs Shaw's account was not contradicted by direct evidence. Mr Lieberknecht agreed in cross-examination that at the time of his meeting with Mr and Mrs Shaw in early 1986, he saw Rocherlea as a subdivision with a potential for up to 700 houses, although he said that he was then aware of the defendant's wish to scale back broad acre development in favour of infill developments and spot purchases. Mr Lieberknecht said that at the time of the meeting, he knew of no plans to double the size of the estate within two to three years. However, Mr Lieberknecht must have believed that a considerable number of houses would be built at some time in the future, otherwise there would be no reason for him to prefer the Blackwood Drive land over the Reservoir Road land as the preferred site for a shopping centre. Indeed, unless the subdivision expanded, the better commercial site was the Reservoir Road land for it was situate on the main access road. Further, Mr Lieberknecht said in his evidence that he believed that Waratah Road would be extended across the subdivision in the direction of Ravenswood to the eastern boundary of the defendant's land as that was something the defendant was obliged to do to give the adjoining land access to a public road. As the Blackwood Drive land is located on the corner of Blackwood Drive and Waratah Road, an extension of the latter across the estate would place a shopping centre built at that location on a main access road. At the time of the meeting, building at Rocherlea was continuing. Evidence was led on behalf of the defendant that the defendant does not provide child minding centres and it was argued therefrom that it is unlikely that Mr Lieberknecht would have said that there will be a child-minding centre right next to the end of the Blackwood Drive site. However, the defendant's witnesses said that the defendant provided "neighbourhood houses" in broad acre developments, albeit from separate funding. With the defendant's approval, these houses were used by community groups such as child carers. The plaintiff's evidence was that such a house was in fact built next to the Blackwood Drive land. Accordingly, the evidence of Mr and Mrs Shaw was not only uncontradicted and unshaken in cross-examination, but it cannot be regarded as an unlikely account of what was said when it is compared to the evidence of Mr Lieberknecht and that of other witnesses.