Template:Isda 9(c) summ: Difference between revisions

In which {{icds}} grapple with the existential question: if I [[close out]] all my {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s because the other guy fundamentally [[Breach of contract|breached the contract]], can I still rely on the good bits of my contract to manage my risk position and enforce my bargain?  

We are deep into [[Ontology|ontological]] territory here, fellows. For while the same thing might be an {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} ''and'' a [[Fundamental breach|fundamental breach of contract]] — almost certainly will be, in fact — treating that event as an {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} is to see it as “infra-contractual action”<ref>I just made that expression up, by the way</ref> being a circumstance contemplated by and provided for within the four corners of your compact; while if you see it as a [[fundamental breach]] you thereby cast your contract on the fire — what good are the promises in it, after all, if the other fellow won’t keep them? — and prostrate yourself at the feet of the [[Queen’s Bench Division]] for redress from among the golden threads developed by the [[common law]]. But these [[common law]] principles are ''about'' the contract, they are not rules ''of'' the contract. The [[contract]] itself it a smoldering husk.