|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| You could scarcely ask for a less necessary [[definition]]. In their hearts, you sense {{icds}} knew this, for they couldn’t find it in themselves to even capitalise it. In the {{1992ma}}, {{isda92prov|rate of exchange}} didn’t even make the {{isdaprov|Definitions}} section, but was half-heartedly tacked onto the end of a clause halfway through the {{isdaprov|Contractual Currency}} section. It made it into the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Definitions}} Section only because it somehow wangled its unecessary way into the new {{isdaprov|Set-off}} clause (Section {{isdaprov|6(f)}} of the {{2002ma}}).
| | {{isda rate of exchange summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| But if two guiding principles of defining terms are (i) ''don’t'', for terms you only use once or twice, and (ii) ''don’t'', if the meaning of the thing you are considering defining is patently obvious — then “{{isdaprov|rate of exchange}}” comprehensively fails the main criteria of a ''good'' definition.
| |
| | |
| The [[JC]]’s general view is, all other things being equal, to ease comprehension, ''eschew'' [[definitions]].
| |
| | |
| Also, could they not have used “''exchange rate''”, instead of {{isdaprov|rate of exchange}}?
| |