Dear Colin,

Many thanks for this, I really appreciate it!

Ger

On 9/17/15, Colin Liew <colinliew@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Gerard,
>
> The decision may be downloaded in pdf format here (
> http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/judgments) about halfway down
> the list.
>
> Kind regards,
> Colin
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Andrew, all
>>
>> This decision (and permutations on the facts you outline) seems to
>> give rise to all kinds of interesting and difficult questions.
>>
>> Suppose for example that the debtor was solvent when it breached its
>> contract but the debt would not fall due under the original loan
>> contract for a period (perhaps a substantial period). Would damages be
>> discounted to take account of:
>>
>> 1. The time value of money e.g. that a sum of money now is worth more
>> than the same sum paid in say 5 years time, where a judgment for
>> damages would be enforceable immediately on judgment? and/or
>> 2. The risk that in the period between judgment for damages and the
>> date on which the debt would have fallen due had the loan contract
>> been performed the debtor would have become insolvent, so that had the
>> loan contract been performed the creditor would have received less
>> than the money payable by virtue of the loan.
>>
>> Presumably also, to ground an action for damages, a positive statement
>> that the debtor will not pay under any circumstances would be required
>> and it would not be enough that the debtor indicated that it did not
>> expect to be in a position to honour its commitments due to
>> insolvency, in circumstances where the debt has not yet fallen due -
>> At least where there is no condition in the loan documentation stating
>> that the debtor is in default if it becomes insolvent (I recognize
>> such conditions are very common).
>>
>> I have not yet read this decision but will do so, if I can track it down.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Ger
>>
>> On 9/16/15, Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > Suppose you owe me £1,000 for goods supplied a month ago, the sum being
>> > payable on Friday. On Monday you say you haven't got any money and
>> > won't
>> > be paying. Can I sue you on Tuesday?
>> >
>> > The Singapore CA has said that the answer is Yes, provided I
>> > characterise my payment as a claim for damages rather than debt, and
>> > say
>> > at the time I sue that I am accepting your anticipatory breach. In The
>> > STX Mumbai [2015] SGCA 35 bunker suppliers, told that they wouldn't be
>> > getting paid by an insolvent shipowner, demanded payment and arrested
>> > the ship a couple of days before the money was actually due. Held: this
>> > was permissible (after a long analysis of anticipatory breach). Seems
>> > logical, albeit it apparently carries the implication that saying you
>> > won't pay a debt now automatically accelerates it.
>> >
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> > *Andrew Tettenborn*
>> > /Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University/
>> >
>> > Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law
>> > School of Law, University of Swansea
>> > Richard Price Building
>> > Singleton Park
>> > SWANSEA SA2 8PP
>> > Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
>> > Cellphone 07472-708527 / (int) +44-7472-708527
>> > Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Andrew Tettenborn*
>> > /Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe/
>> >
>> > Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
>> > Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
>> > Adeilad Richard Price
>> > Parc Singleton
>> > ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
>> > Ffôn 01792-602724 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-602724
>> > Ffôn symudol 07472-708527 / (rhyngwladol) +44-7472-708527
>> > Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Lawyer (n):*One versed in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ***
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>