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