|
''Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank'' is an English contract law case concerning interpretation of contracts. The Supreme Court confirmed the principle laid down in ''Wickman v Schuler'' that, if the words of a contract have ambiguous meanings, the court will interpret it in a manner that most accords with "business common sense". There is no requirement for a party to prove that the alternative interpretation is entirely unreasonable. ==Facts== Rainy Sky was one of five ship-owning firms that ordered vessels from Jinse Shipbuilding Co, a South Korean shipbuilder, at a cost of US$33,300,000 per ship. The payment was to be made in five equal installments. The contract between Rainy Sky and Jinse permitted Rainy Sky to rescind the contract if various events occurred (such as late delivery or inadequate performance of the vessel, or loss of the vessel before delivery). It also obliged Jinse to refund the payments if it became insolvent, although, in this case, the contract would not automatically be rescinded. Jinse were required to provide the buyers with a performance bond, guaranteeing the repayment of the buyer's money. Jinse obtained such a bond from Kookmin Bank - however, the terms of the bond did not match exactly the terms of the contract, and the central issue in the court case was the interpretation of the bond. The bond stated (''inter alia''): "() Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, you (Sky ) are entitled, upon your rejection of the Vessel in accordance with the terms of the Contract, your termination, cancellation or rescission of the Contract or upon a Total Loss of the Vessel, to repayment of the pre-delivery instalments..." "() ...we hereby ... undertake to pay to you ... all such sums due to you under the Contract..." Rainy Sky had made two of the required payments when Jinse encountered financial difficulties and entered into an insolvency process. This triggered the requirement for it to repay the money, and, as it could not do this, Rainy Sky called on Kookmin Bank to honour the guarantee. Kookmin, however, claimed that it was under no obligation to make the payment, as the bond only covered "rejection of the vessel" and "termination, cancellation or recission of the contract", not the insolvency of Jinse. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|