The phrase "subject to contract" is generally understood in the context of the sale of land to mean that the parties are not bound until a formal contract is signed. The use of this expression can affect the formation of contract and/or its enforceability, which are or should be two separate issues. This article attempts to show the confusion of these two issues by the Courts in the understanding, interpretation and use of cases which have dealt with one or both of these issues and some consequences, actual or possible, of such confusion.

The use of agreements or concerted practices to keep parallel goods out of the European Union may result in a competition-law violation. Regardless of the status of the intellectual property rights embodied in goods first sold outside of the European Economic Area(EEA), the combination of restrictive agreements prohibiting export to the European Union, combined with a selective distribution system within the EEA that is in a position to exploit the resultant higher price in the market, could be found to violate Article 81 of the EC treaty. As the European Court of Justice slowly delineates the complexities of intellectual property exhaustion, the competition-law issues raised by global parallel trade may come to overshadow the intellectual property considerations that have driven Court of Justice jurisprudence.

This article examines the emergence of the remedial constructive trust in Singapore, and the consequential need to rethink the distinction between personal and proprietary claims. The focus will be on the implications of the constructive trust for the insolvency or bankruptcy regime.

This article surveys the attitude of Commonwealth courts to extraterritorial jurisdiction. it points out that whereas other Commonwealth courts favour the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, courts in Malaysia and Singapore have adhered to a strict view based on the territoriality principle. In the context of the increase in transnational crime, such views should not be maintained. The article argues that existing provisions of the law could be read as admitting the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. If such a course is not followed by the courts, there is an urgent need in this area for legislative reform.

As the NUS Faculty of Law celebrates 50 years of legal education in Singapore, this article explores some of the likely developments in Singapore legal education in the next few years. The paper suggests that globalisation will mean a greater emphasis on comparative law and more international collaboration amongst law schools. It also suggests that inter-disciplinary perspectives in the study of law will become more important, as will skills programmes designed to serve as vehicles to develop both practical and higher order thinking skills. A student-centric teaching pedagogy will remain important although resource constraints may lead to changes in the teaching methods used. The paper also opines that with globalisation, there is a growing awareness of what teaching best practices in legal education are and this will lead to calls for reform in the many parts of the world where law teaching is of poor quality.

Prior to independence, legal education was all but non-existent in Singapore and many other colonies. This essay briefly discusses that colonial context before going on to describe how the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law came to play an important part in Singapore's rule of law story as Singapore's national law school, a global law school, and an Asian law school. A third section considers challenges for the future, including the impact of technology on legal practice and the changing market for legal services. These transformations require us to rethink the purpose of law school, even as they are matched by changes in the students and faculty who enter our classrooms and our offices.