Unconscionability and performance bonds
by Ji Lian Yap
International Journal of Private Law (IJPL), Vol. 6, No. 3, 2013

Abstract: This 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.

Online publication date: Fri, 29-Nov-2013

The full text of this article is only available to individual subscribers or to users at subscribing institutions.

 
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.

Pay per view:
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.

Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Private Law (IJPL):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:

Username:        Password:          Forgotten your password?

Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.

If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com