Contract Law

Contract Law Order Description 8. In Richly Bright International Ltd. v. De Monsa Investments Ltd. FACV 12/2014 (18 May 2015) ((2015) 18 HKCFAR 232), the Hong Kong Court of Fin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inal Appeal endorsed the “assumption of responsibility” test of remoteness that Lord Hoffmann advocated in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in The “ACHILLEAS” ([2008] UKHL 48, [2009] 1 AC 61). In contrast, in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in Industries Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 15, the Sin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ingapore Court of Appeal rejected Lord Hoffmann’s “assumption of responsibility” test. Critically evaluate the reasonin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing of the Hong Kong Court of Fin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inal Appeal and the Sin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ingapore Court of Appeal. Which view do you prefer?