The Court held that a clause in a heads of agreement stating it 'supplements the Mudaraba Investment Agreement signed with MATC' did not incorporate the terms of an unsigned Mudaraba-style investment agreement document, because the document was never signed and the word 'supplements' is not a word of incorporation. Even if construed as an incorporating clause, its general language was apt only to incorporate terms directly germane to the host contract (a conventional loan), and fundamentally inconsistent profit-and-loss sharing terms would be rejected. The Court also found that an implied duty to cooperate required the fourth defendant not to dispose of security property without the lender's consent, but the claim for breach failed for want of admissible evidence of loss, as the plaintiffs adduced no evidence of the property's value or available equity at the date of breach.
The full text is available to signed-in members.