Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

4-2002

Abstract

Since the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. Malaysia Mining Corp. Bhd, it would be understandable if the business community placed little or no reliance on letters of comfort save in the exceptional case where the terms evince an undeniably clear intention to create binding obligations. It might therefore seem somewhat surprising that an experienced and sophisticated institution should commence proceedings in the High Court of Singapore on the premise of a letter of awareness in Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. Jurong Engineering Ltd. This could plausibly be explained as the bank’s last-ditch attempt to salvage an ill-fated transaction. Yet perhaps underlying this facile explanation there also exists a tangible and sanguine expectation that some legal consequences should attach to assurances given by a parent company in support of its subsidiary’s obligations. And such expectation did not seem to have been quelled by the weight of authorities to the contrary. The reasoning and result in this case reiterate the pivotal role played by the concept of contractual intent in the protection of parties’ expectations and provides us with a fresh opportunity to consider how such intent is to be ascertained.

Discipline

Contracts

Research Areas

Corporate, Finance and Securities Law

Publication

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

Volume

2002

Issue

2

First Page

169

Last Page

176

ISSN

0306-2945

Publisher

Informa

Copyright Owner and License

Publisher

Additional URL

https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=130336

Download

Included in

Contracts Commons

Share

COinS