This paper traces the divergence of Singapore law from English law with regard to the grounds upon which a call on a performance bond can be restrained, in particular the recent recognition of the Singapore Court of Appeal's ruling that "unconscionability" is a separate ground to restrain the call of a performance bond. This article examines the legal nature of an on demand performance bond and seeks to challenge the assumption that a performance bond is a mirror image of a letter of credit. This paper also discusses the recent case of Cargill International v. Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corp. The paper will also seek to investigate the ambit of the notion of "unconscionability" and the general principles that can be drawn from a line of Singapore High Court decisions which presage this landmark ruling.
Performance bond, guarantee, on demand, injunctions, international finance
Asian Studies | Banking and Finance Law | International Law
Corporate, Finance and Securities Law
Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
Informa Business Intelligence
LOH, Quentin and TANG, Hang Wu.
Injunctions restraining calls on performance bonds: Is fraud the only ground in Singapore?. (2000). Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly. , 348-363. Research Collection School Of Law.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2379
Copyright Owner and License
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.