Failure by either Party to deliver - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{gmsla9commentary}} | {{gmsla9commentary}} | ||
Note also the clear exclusion of indirect and [[consequential loss]]es, as well as losses to which the Transferee is contributorily negligent. If you are thinking I just made up the adjective "contributorily", and were about to conclude I'm maybe a bit ''[[reckless]]''<ref>I expect [[Mediocre lawyer|careful attorneys]] to be rolling around on the floor laughing at this ''bon mot''.</ref>* you might be interested to know it is actually a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contributorily word]. | Note also the clear exclusion of indirect and [[consequential loss]]es, as well as losses to which the Transferee is contributorily negligent. If you are thinking I just made up the adjective "contributorily", and were about to conclude I'm maybe a bit ''[[reckless]]''<ref>I expect [[Mediocre lawyer|careful attorneys]] to be rolling around on the floor laughing at this ''bon mot''.</ref>* you might be interested to know it is actually a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contributorily word]. | ||
===Replacement costs and isda hedging language=== | |||
Does it make sense to replace this clause with some convoluted shtick about the costs of replacement transactions or otherwise hedging the innocent party’s exposure? To determine follow this flow chart: | |||
[[File:GS Tree.png|thumb|Not called the [[vampire squid]] for nothing, you know.]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |
Revision as of 16:40, 31 May 2019
GMSLA Anatomy™
then the Transferor agrees to pay within one Business Day of a demand from the Transferee and hold harmless the Transferee with respect to all reasonable costs and expenses listed in sub paragraphs (a) and (b) above properly incurred which arise directly from such failure other than (i) such costs and expenses which arise from the negligence or wilful default of the Transferee and (ii) any indirect or consequential losses.
|
Mini close-out
See the discussion on mini close-out under the 2010 GMSLA (and the 1995 OSLA for that matter) and also the general discussion with regard to this clause in its wider context at clause 9.
Note also the clear exclusion of indirect and consequential losses, as well as losses to which the Transferee is contributorily negligent. If you are thinking I just made up the adjective "contributorily", and were about to conclude I'm maybe a bit reckless[1]* you might be interested to know it is actually a word.
Replacement costs and isda hedging language
Does it make sense to replace this clause with some convoluted shtick about the costs of replacement transactions or otherwise hedging the innocent party’s exposure? To determine follow this flow chart:
References
- ↑ I expect careful attorneys to be rolling around on the floor laughing at this bon mot.