案件报告(法律英语)thecasereport1、factsofcase：theclaimantshadenteredintoashipbuildingcontractwithakoreanshipbuilder，whowasacustomerofthedefendantbank.theclaimantshadtopaytheshipbuilderinadvancebyinstalments.underthetermsofthecontractstheshipbuilderwasrequiredtorepaytheseinstalmentsincertaincircumstances，includingtheinsolvencyoftheshipbuilderpriortodeliveryoftheships.toguaranteerepaymentofthepre-deliveryinstalmentstheshipbuilderwasrequiredtoprovidetheclaimantswithbondsissuedbyareputablebank.theshipbuilderarrangedforthedefendantbanktoissuethebonds.beforefinishingtheshipsitranintofinancialdifficultiesandenteredaninsolvencyprocedureunderkoreanlaw.theclaimantsrequestedrefundsofthepaymentsmadebythem，astheywerecontractuallyentitledto.whenpaymentwasnotforthcomingtheycalledonthebankpursuanttothebonds.thebankrefusedtopay，arguingthatthewordingofthebondsdidnotcovertheshipbuilder"sinsolvency.theclaimantsdisagreedandsued.then，thebank"sargumentsucceedinthecourtofappeal，afterthattheclaimantsappealedsuccessfullytothesupremecourt.“inthiscase，thefactsarefrompara.1topara.6.”2、legalissues：theresolutionoftheissuebetweenthepartiesdependsuponthetrueconstructionofpara.3.theissuebetweentheclaimantsandshipbuilderinthisappealistheroletobeplayedbyconsiderationsofbusinesscommonsenseindeterminingwhatthepartiesmeant.“inthiscase，thelegalissuesarefrompara.15.”3、argumentsofbothpaties：thedisputecentredonthemeaningofthewords“allsuchsum第1页共5页s”inparagraph[3]ofthebonds.thebankarguedthatthephrasereferredbacktothepre-deliveryinstalmentslistedinparagraph[2]，whichcruciallyomittedinsolvencyoftheshipbuilder.whereastheclaimantssaidthatitreferredtothe“pre-deliveryinstalments”inthefirstlineofparagraph[3].theysaidthatthepurposeofthebondswastoguaranteetherefundofthepre-deliveryinstalmentsinallcircumstances，includingtheinsolvencyoftheshipbuilder.neitheroftheseinterpretationwasfreefromdifficulty.thebank"sinterpretationwas，arguably，commerciallyimplausible，whereasontheclaimants"interpretationthewholeofparagraph[2]couldbesaidtoberedundant.“inthiscase，theargumentsofbothpartiesarefrompara.9.”4、thedecisionsandcommentsmadebythejudge：simonj：simonjpreferredtheclaimants"sinterpretation.heheldthatpara.[3]ofthebondsdeterminedthesubstanceoftheparties"rightsandthatthephrase“allsuchsums”relatedtothewiderreferencetopre-deliveryinstalmentsearlierinthatparagraph，ratherthantoparagraph2，whichhetreatedasamerepreamble.heplacedgreatweightonthefactthatthebank"sinterpretationwouldeffectivelydeprivetheclaimantsofthebenefitofthebondsintheverycircumstancesinwhichtheyweremostlikelytorequireit，i.e.theinsolvencyoftheshipbuilder.thisheregardasuncommercial.（para.4）pattenlj（withwhomthorpeljagreed）：byamajoritythecourtofappealreversedsimonj"sdecision.pattenlj（withwhomthorpeljagreed）couldnotacceptthatpa第2页共5页ra.2servednousefulpurpose.heconsideredthatitsobviouspurposewastogivetheaddresseeofthebondaclearstatementofthebuilder"sobligationsunderthecontracttobecoveredbytheguarantee，whichwasconsistentwiththeshipbuilder"sobligationsunderthecontractstoprovidethebonds.inhisviewthebank"sinterpretationwasclearlytobepreferred.pattenljtookamuchmorerestrictiveviewofthecircumstancesinwhichacourtcouldconfidentlydeclarethatoneorotherpossiblemeaningofwordsusedinacontractwasuncommercial.heconcluedthatitwasimpermissibleforthe...
