LIBOR rigging: Difference between revisions

And the argument here is not about economic reality, but legal meaning, and legal meaning follows natural, syntactical meanings, and at least in the world of contracts, tends to be construed [[Contra proferentem|against the draftsperson’s interest]] to give the benefit of the doubt to the reader. As a plain matter of English interpretation, as the court openly concedes, “could” does not rule out a higher rate, but in fact implies it: “a borrower ''can'' always borrow at a higher rate than the lowest one on offer”.

To conclude that this could does not mean that, therefore, involves ''implying'' a term into the contract. Inserting an adjective that the drafters of the rules could easily have included ''but chose not to''. Evidence was not led as to how the rules were drafted, and what flexibility the British Bankers’ Association had in mind. and after all, history has borne out that, sometimes, there are times where Banks and their regulators are rightly motivated by considerations other than the actual (lowest) rate at which one could borrow. {{sa}}