File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Unconscionability and Performance Bonds

TitleUnconscionability and Performance Bonds
Authors
KeywordsLaw
Issue Date2013
PublisherInderscience Publishers. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.inderscience.com/ijpl
Citation
International Journal of Private Law, 2013, v. 6 n. 3, p. 279-288 How to Cite?
AbstractThis article considers the question of whether, as a matter of legal policy, unconscionability should be adopted by English courts as a ground upon which the court can grant an injunction to restrain a beneficiary of a performance bond from calling on the bond. The May 2012 decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 28 will be discussed in detail. This decision sheds useful light on the question of whether unconscionability should be adopted by English courts as a ground on which an injunction may be granted to restrain a call on a performance bond. In particular, this article will argue that the fear that excessive uncertainty would arise as a result of the adoption of unconscionability as a ground on which such an injunction can be granted may not be justified. Finally, observations will be made as to the significance of the divergence between Singapore law and English law in this area.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/185932
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.100

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYap, JLen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-20T11:46:39Z-
dc.date.available2013-08-20T11:46:39Z-
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Private Law, 2013, v. 6 n. 3, p. 279-288en_US
dc.identifier.issn1753-6235-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/185932-
dc.description.abstractThis article considers the question of whether, as a matter of legal policy, unconscionability should be adopted by English courts as a ground upon which the court can grant an injunction to restrain a beneficiary of a performance bond from calling on the bond. The May 2012 decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 28 will be discussed in detail. This decision sheds useful light on the question of whether unconscionability should be adopted by English courts as a ground on which an injunction may be granted to restrain a call on a performance bond. In particular, this article will argue that the fear that excessive uncertainty would arise as a result of the adoption of unconscionability as a ground on which such an injunction can be granted may not be justified. Finally, observations will be made as to the significance of the divergence between Singapore law and English law in this area.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherInderscience Publishers. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.inderscience.com/ijpl-
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Private Lawen_US
dc.rightsInternational Journal of Private Law. Copyright © Inderscience Publishers.-
dc.subjectLaw-
dc.titleUnconscionability and Performance Bondsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailYap, JL: jilyap@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityYap, JL=rp01273en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1504/IJPL.2013.054769-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84879654895-
dc.identifier.hkuros220284en_US
dc.identifier.volume6-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage279en_US
dc.identifier.epage288en_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.customcontrol.immutablesml 130905-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats