Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11718/22129
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPathak, Akhileshwar-
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-04T03:44:16Z-
dc.date.available2019-06-04T03:44:16Z-
dc.date.issued2017-03-29-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11718/22129-
dc.description.abstractBank guarantee’ and ‘Performance guarantee’ are familiar financial instruments. More often than not, a party wants a demand bond and not a guarantee. A demand bond is payable on demand while a guarantee is payable only when a breach is established by a court. The rights and obligations of the parties are very different under these instruments. The banks, since the inception in the 1970s, (mis)described what was intended to be a demand bond to be a guarantee. This led to much confusion and dispute. The British Court judgement, Edward Owen Engineering Ltd. v. Barclays Bank International Ltd., (1978) QB 159. brought to the surface the (mis)description. Since, the businesses describe the instrument as performance bond and structure it like a bond. Indifferent practices, however, continue.en_US
dc.publisherIndian Institute of Management Ahmedabaden_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBP0409TEC;-
dc.subjectBank Guaranteeen_US
dc.subjectPerformance Guaranteeen_US
dc.subjectDemand Bonden_US
dc.titleBank Guarantee and Performance Guarantee: Bond (Mis)describeden_US
dc.typeCases and Notesen_US
Appears in Collections:Cases and Notes

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in IIMA Institutional Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.