Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
RETHINKING THE SIGNATURE RULE
Sandra Annette Booysen*
Als Memasa v UBS
Just months after endorsing the caveat emptor principle,1 the Singapore Court of Appeal appears to be striking a new balance. In the recent case of Als Memasa v UBS AG,2 the court said that the time may have come to review whether unsophisticated bank customers, who have signed terms they do not understand, should be bound by clauses which excuse misconduct or negligence on the part of the bank.
The background to the case is significant, as economies and courts continue to deal with the fallout from the 2007–2008 global financial crisis. The particular facts of the case are also important. The customers were a wealthy father and his daughter. The father was 95 years old; his daughter was in her sixties. Both were unfamiliar with the English language. They sued the defendant bank, UBS, after the bank liquidated their holdings to meet margin calls following disastrous investments in complex financial products. The statement of claim was poorly particularised and was struck out by an assistant registrar.
1. Soon Kok Tiang and others v DBS Bank Ltd [2011] SGCA 55; [2012] 1 SLR 397, [63]: “Illiteracy whether linguistic, financial or general, does not enable a contracting party to avoid a contract whose terms he has expressly agreed to be bound by.”
2. [2012] SGCA 43.
LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY
22