Where, on the face of a contract, the existence of a debt is conditional on the occurrence of a particular fact, and that fact has not occurred, because the person who promised payment has prevented it from occurring, does the debt arise nevertheless on the notion that the condition is then to be deemed fulfilled? In King Crude Carriers SA v Ridgebury November LLC,1 a unanimous Court of Appeal, reversing the judge, endorsed the effect of that notion while appearing to resituate it as a matter of contractual construction, based upon the objective intention of the contracting parties. That would be a step in the right direction. The precise nature of that notion remains murky, however, and would profit from further clarification.