Advance payment bonds: Another bond story | Magazine Comment | Building Page 1 of 2

Tuesday04 November 2014

Advance payment bonds: Another bond story

01 October 2010 | By Joe Griffiths

On-demand bonds to protect advance payments are a really good idea, but a recent case shows that you have to
give the courts as little room for interpretation as possible

There is an increasing trend for contractors to demand advance payments from developers before embarking on
construction projects. Advance payments are usually provided in exchange for the provision by the contractor of
an advance payment bond that pays out if, for example, the contractor goes bust. This arrangement is also
common in the shipbuilding industry.

Although an on-demand payment bond is a neat way of protecting developers against contractor insolvency after
the former has handed the latter a large advance, a recent decision in the Court of Appeal has highlighted the
importance of getting their wording right.

The case of Kookmin concerned the use of on-demand payment bonds for shipbuilding contracts provided by a
shipbuilder called Jinse, in exchange for a large down-payment.
Jinse provided the on-demand bond from Kookmin Bank of Korea. Later Jinse went bust and the purchaser made
a call on the bond. Kookmin refused to pay out and they all ended up in court in England.

The relevant paragraph of the bond (paragraph two) stated that “pursuant to the terms of the contract, you [the
buyer] are entitled, upon your rejection of the vessel … your termination, cancellation or rescission of the contract
or upon a total loss of the vessel, to repayment of the pre-delivery instalments of the contract price …

”Paragraph three said that “in consideration of your agreement to make the pre-delivery installments under the
contract … we hereby … irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay to you … on your first written demand,
all such sums due to you under the contract”.

The underlying contracts (of which there were six) entitled the buyers to repayment of its money in the event that
Jinse went bust, following which Jinse would be able to terminate the contract.

The question taken to appeal revolved around the meaning of the phrase in paragraph three of the bond, “all such
sums due to you under the contract”, and more specifically, the phrase “such sums”.
This site uses cookies
You would be forgiven for thinking that the phrase “all such sums due to you under the contract” meant what it
said: that is, if the buyers were entitled to any money under the contracts from Jinse,
By continuing to and Jinse
browse thefailed to pay,
site you are the
bond would kick in. agreeing to our use of cookies. Read our Cookie
Policy to find out more.
The first instance judge and a lone dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal would agree with you. Why else have
an on-demand bond if it is not to protect the buyer against contractor insolvency? The Court of Appeal would not
I AGREE
agree. It said that “all such sums due to you under the contract” referred to the pre-delivery instalments only
becoming repayable in the circumstances referred to in the preamble-type paragraph two of the bond, and not to
them becoming repayable in any circumstances under the underlying contracts. The bond therefore only paid out if
Jinse terminated the contract and Jinse was only entitled to do so once it had paid back the advance payments.

You would be forgiven for thinking that the phrase ’all such sums due to you under the contract’
meant the bond would pay out. the court of appeal did not agree

http://www.building.co.uk/advance-payment-bonds-another-bond-story/5006460.article 11/4/2014
Advance payment bonds: Another bond story | Magazine Comment | Building Page 2 of 2

The Court of Appeal’s literal approach in interpreting this bargain seems out of kilter with the guidance and
approach taken in cases such as Chartbrook vs Persimmon, where more of a business common-sense approach
was adopted. However the Court of Appeal in Kookmin said there may have been any number of commercial
reasons why Jinse would not want the bond to pay out in the event of its insolvency and so the court refused to
give the bond a wider interpretation.

The moral of this story is that great care must be taken when drafting recitals and introductory paragraphs in
bonds. In the construction industry more and more firms are asking for advance payments before they start a
project, and for any employer looking to protect advance payments, an on-demand payment bond is a good idea.
However, as the decision in Kookmin has shown, there are real dangers in drafting unnecessary recitals or
introductory paragraphs.

The Court of Appeal’s decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court, so watch this space.

Joe Griffiths is a partner at Manches

Marketplace Recommendations

Newforma Contract Owners and Bid Cost Survey Work Winning

Management Developers Behaviours

Ads Powered with

0 Like 0
Follow @buildingnews 52.4K followers

LATEST CASE STUDIES

This site uses cookies
Access control Kensa Heat Pump Innovations in
system for for Cotswold Water Curved Stairs
Beverley Tollesby Park By continuing to browse the site you are
School agreeing to our use of cookies. Read our Cookie
Policy to find out more.

I AGREE
Read More Read More Read More

Desktop Site | Mobile Site

http://www.building.co.uk/advance-payment-bonds-another-bond-story/5006460.article 11/4/2014