Injuncting calls on performance bonds: an analysis of 'unconscionability' in Singapore

Arvin Lee

May 2003

A paper based on the commended entry in the Hudson Prize Competition
2002

The author looks at the differences in the law of Singapore from that
of England, where fraud is the sole ground for restraining a beneficiary
from making a call on a performance bond. In Singapore, unconscionability
exists as a separate ground. He provides a basic framework for evaluating
the proper scope of unconscionability and offers a reasoned case for
circumscribing this new ground to instances of patently oppressive
calls. Part 1 reviews the causes that have prompted the Singapore judiciary
on the road to divergence, as well as the critiques of the divergence.
Part 2 shows that the divergence is critical only when fraud is absent
and that the scope of unconscionability therefore has to be elucidated
in tandem with that of fraud.

Introduction - 1. Divergence of Singapore law: causes and commentary
reviewed - Causes - The current commentary - eappraising the causes
and commentary - 2. efining the ambit of 'unconscionability' - Conclusion.

The author: Arvin Lee LLB (London) is a research intern at the Institute
of Policy Studies, Singapore.

Text: 15 pages.
PDF file size: 109k