Publication Type
Blog Post
Version
publishedVersion
Publication Date
6-2012
Abstract
There is an ongoing legal debate concerning the test governing the implication of terms in fact, prompted in no small measure by Lord Hoffmann’s influential speech in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom. In Belize, Lord Hoffmann famously said that the question for a court considering whether a term should be implied is ‘whether such a [term] would spell out in express words what the instrument, read against the relevant background, would reasonably be understood to mean’. This has generally been regarded by judges3 and academics4 as subsuming the implication of terms within the broader rubric of ‘interpretation’. The consequence is that the ‘reasonable person’ test that underpins contractual interpretation now applies to determine whether a term should be implied.
Keywords
Contract, Contractual terms, Admissibility of evidence
Discipline
Asian Studies | Law
Publication
Singapore Law Watch Commentaries
Volume
2012
First Page
1
Last Page
6
Citation
GOH, Yihan.
Traditional Tests for Implication of Terms Prevail in Singapore Despite ‘Acceptance’ of Belize Test: Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd. (2012). Singapore Law Watch Commentaries. 2012, 1-6.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1508
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Additional URL
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/singapore-law-watch/commentaries
Comments
Archived on LawNet