Securities Transfer Absolute Intent Upheld

A lower court ruled that a party who signed a document, which did not explicitly state the purpose of the transfer of securities, could not later claim that the transfer was merely a security for a loan, as the absence of such a clause could not override the clear terms of the written instrument executed by the parties. The high court upheld this decision, reasoning that the trial judge correctly inferred from the silence of the document regarding any underlying debt that the transfer of securities was intended to be absolute and final, thus precluding the introduction of extrinsic evidence to contradict the unambiguous written agreement of the parties.