Use in it terminology....it's more like pls respond

Legally this is hearsay. Unless C admitted or proven that the person alluded in the conversation between A and B is actually C then then only thing that can be accepted is that there is a conversation between A and B but the validity of the conversation regarding C will not be accepted in court.

A and B talking about C. Whats so hard to understand? Did C in this conversation where it shows the instruction is from C?

You cant use only this. To be admissable there must also be a conversation between A and C or B and C.

If just based on this, C is only a third party where this conversation is supoosed to be about C with the possibility of C did not even know head or tail about this conversation at all and C's name possibly been use as if the actual instructuon comes from C to give the sense or urgency.

Unnerstand??