Services act as a middleman allowing1/26/2024 ![]() Grand Fortune EWHC 147 (Comm) (“ Americas Bulk Transport”) at citing Hector v Lyons (1988) 58 P & CR 156 and Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson 1 AC 919 per Lord Hobhouse at. In cases where the contract is contained in a document, the inquiry centres on whether the document sufficiently and unequivocally identifies the parties to the contract: Americas Bulk Transport Limited (Liberia) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Limited (China) m.v. The plaintiff did not act in the same manner which the accused in Lange Vivian had.ħ1 The approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one: iVenture Card Ltd and others v Big Bus Singapore City Sightseeing Pte Ltd and others 1 SLR 302 (“ iVenture”) at. It was thus clear to me that the third indicia which I have highlighted above was absent from the present transaction. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant did not disclose to the plaintiff the identity of the ultimate buyer is consistent with the position that the defendant is not a mere middleman and that the 1st and 2nd Agreements are independent of each other. The plaintiff turns up at the defendant’s office, the money is on the table on the understanding that once the transfer of the Bitcoin is confirmed, the plaintiff is entitled to walk away with the cash. Certainly, the manner in which the transaction was conducted is consistent with the nature of the contractual relationship, which both parties had pleaded. The plaintiff’s case (aside from the issue of the identity of the parties) is exactly the same, that it was a simple sale agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it was not contingent on any other agreement. The 1st Agreement was between the seller, GCX, and Qrypt and the 2nd Agreement was between Qrypt and the Buyers. ![]() The accused would then take the fiat currency and purchase cryptocurrency and facilitate the transfer of that cryptocurrency to Party B.Ħ7 The defendant specifically pleaded in paragraph 4(q) of the Defence that there were two separate contracts in this transaction. Party A would pass the accused fiat currency through her bank account. It was evident that she was acting as an intermediary. Third, the role which the accused in Lange Vivian played in the transactions. Again, in Lange Vivian, the accused had received 13 inward transfers and used that money to make an unspecified number of Bitcoin transfers to various unknown parties. Second, the number of transactions in question. In Lange Vivian, the accused had pocketed a 10% commission. As can be gleaned from the facts of Lange Vivian, there appear to be three indicia which suggest that a person is carrying on a business of providing a type of payment service in Singapore. As that provision clearly states: “A person must not carry on a business of providing any type of payment service in Singapore”. There is no contravention of s 5 of the PSA. ![]() Ħ4 In the present case, I do not think that the Agreement had an illegal object. … irst, that, where a contract is ex facie illegal, the court will not enforce it, whether the illegality is pleaded or not secondly, that, where … the contract is not ex facie illegal, evidence of extraneous circumstances tending to show that it has an illegal object should not be admitted unless the circumstances relied on are pleaded thirdly, that, where unpleaded facts, which taken by themselves show an illegal object, have been revealed in evidence (because, perhaps, no objection was raised or because they were adduced for some other purpose), the court should not act on them unless it is satisfied that the whole of the relevant circumstances are before it but, fourthly, that, where the court is satisfied that all the relevant facts are before it and it can see clearly from them that the contract had an illegal object, it may not enforce the contract, whether the facts were pleaded or not.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |