We welcomed the recent decision that ‘business common sense’ should be upheld where contractual wording is unclear.
The court concluded that where the term of a contract could be interpreted in more than one way, business common sense should dictate which meaning was intended.
The case in question was Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank in which an issue arose regarding a bond issued in support of a shipbuilding contract. The shipbuilder had entered into an insolvency procedure (under Korean law) and had defaulted on the contract. The buyer sought to rely on the bond – which included an undertaking to pay ‘all such sums due .. under the contract’. The bank refused to pay. Did the term ‘such sums’ refer only to certain specific payments or to all money owing upon insolvency?
Applying business common sense, The High Court took it to mean the latter. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, saying the use of common sense should be limited to where it was necessary to avert extreme or irrational meanings of words.
The Supreme Court agreed with the first ruling and held that ‘all sums’ meant ‘all money owing’. Their ultimate aim was to establish what the parties meant.
The decision is reassuring as it confirms that courts should use common sense in establishing what the parties intended to agree. This may save a party from unclear contractual wording. However in practice, the case highlights the general rule that it is cheaper to address issues beforehand than to correct them. If you are concerned that contract terms may be ambiguous, it is better to ensure precise drafting at the outset rather than seek a remedy through costly litigation.
As always, if you need commercial and pragmatic legal advice, we’re here to help so please get in touch.
The classic car market is a multi-billion pound industry, not surprisingly with many legal complications, but that shouldn’t impair the joy these four-wheeled icons can bring… What kind of businesses…
The court has shed light on the legal concept of ‘dishonest assistance’, in the recent case of Group Seven Limited & Others v Notable Services LLP & Others [2019]. By…
They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. But when it comes to intellectual property, a competitor copying your ideas can put your business’s whole operation and finances at…
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through our website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorised as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyse and understand how you use our website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies but it may affect your browsing experience on our website. You can find our cookie policy here.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for our website to function and enable core functionality such as security and accessibility. These cookies do not store any personal information. You can block these cookies by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.
We use performance cookies such as Google Analytics to help us count the number of visitors and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works, for example, by ensuring that users are finding what they are looking for easily. The cookies collect information in a way that does not directly identify anyone. For more information on how these cookies work, please see our cookie policy.