Abstract
Several pronouncements from all the three reasoned judgments in the recent appeals of Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank have essentially answered the question raised above in the affirmative. Two of the judgments take the view that clear and unambiguous language of contracts means what it says, and must be applied accordingly. For the third, however, the court should apply the language unless the application will produce an extremely unreasonable result. This article seeks to evaluate the soundness of these plain meaning approaches to construction in the light of Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Society and selected subsequent decisions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
