Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Shanghai v Reignwood: what makes a guarantee “on demand”?
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Guarantees are essential features of commercial financing transactions. But the nature of the guarantor’s liability may vary significantly. Is the guarantor liable only when the underlying obligor has defaulted on its obligations (a “see to it” guarantee) – or as soon as the guarantee’s beneficiary makes a good faith demand (an “on demand” guarantee)? Shanghai v Reignwood [2021] EWCA 1147 (Court of Appeal) illustrates the importance of the distinction, and how it can turn on fine points of construction.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
