Abstract
Several pronouncements from all the three reasoned judgments in the recent appeals of Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank have essentially answered the question raised above in the affirmative. Two of the judgments take the view that clear and unambiguous language of contracts means what it says, and must be applied accordingly. For the third, however, the court should apply the language unless the application will produce an extremely unreasonable result. This article seeks to evaluate the soundness of these plain meaning approaches to construction in the light of Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Society and selected subsequent decisions.