On 18 August 2015, Parliament passed the Human Biomedical Research Bill, which establishes two separate, but related, frameworks for the regulation of human biomedical_x000D_ research and tissue banking.2 The aim of these frameworks is “to protect research subjects and tissue donors, so that dealings are conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. The Minister of State for Health, in moving the Bill however, was careful to emphasise that the Ministry of Health's (“MOH") intention is to use the HBRA as an instrument “to ensure the safety and welfare of research subjects whilst not stifling sound, ethical research."

If a contracting party cannot pay in US dollars, can they pay the equivalent in Euros? Set against the backdrop of force majeure, the conclusion reached by the UK Supreme Court in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV was, perhaps surprisingly, no. The court held that reasonable endeavours provisos in force majeure clauses can never require a party to accept non-contractual performance (ie, performance on different terms from the contract). This comment has two aims. First, it explains why the holding should be reconsidered, and in so doing sets out a preferable approach to interpreting reasonable endeavours provisos in force majeure clauses. Second, it makes suggestions on the approach to interpreting force majeure clauses more generally. In this regard, references and observations will also be made on the position in Singapore.

Singapore has recently instigated two pieces of regulation related to consumer credit—the Buy-Now, Pay-Later Code of Conduct, and the Debt Collection Act 2022. This article discusses the background of these pieces of regulation, considers their similarities and differences, and analyses the benefits and drawbacks of the two approaches. It concludes by highlighting that, whilst they are both well-meaning and have the ability to improve the lives of vulnerable consumers, further work is necessary for the full potential of both regulatory instruments to be realised.