Tužitelj je izdao tri garancije za povrat avansa naručitelju triju novogradnji u korejskom brodogradilištu. Brodogradilište nije isporučilo brodove sukladno uvjetima iz ugovora o gradnji broda te su tuženi zatražili povrat plaćenih avansa po garancijama. Tužitelj je ustao deklaratornom tužbom radi utvrđenja da nije u obvezi platiti po garancijama tvrdeći, između ostaloga, da su garancije zapravo jamstva (suretyship), a ne garancije plative na prvi poziv (performance bond ili demand guarantee). Sud je utvrdio da se ipak radi o garancijama plativim na poziv te je presudio u korist korisnika garancija u iznosima navedenima u garancijama.The claimant (Meritz) has issued three guarantees to the buyers of three new buildings at the Korean shipyard for refund of the advance payments of the contract price. The shipyard failed to deliver the vessels pursuant to terms of the shipbuilding contracts and the defendants demanded payments under the guarantees. The claimant
sought a declaratory judgement realizing him from the guarantees, arguing that the guarantees are classic contracts of suretyship and not performance bonds or demand guarantees. The judge concluded that they were performance bonds i.e. demand guarantees and decided in favour of the defendants in the amounts of the guarantees
