Template:M comp disc 2000 GMSLA 8.4: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Except for the deletion of the prefix “re” in the 2010 version, this clause is unchanged between the {{2000gmsla}} and the {{gmsla}}. Why delete the prefix “re”? Epist..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Except for the deletion of the prefix “re” in the 2010 version, this clause is unchanged between the {{2000gmsla}} and the {{gmsla}}. Why delete the prefix “re”? Epistemic purity. If one delivers {{gmsla2000prov|Collateral}} title transfer, the asset leaves your sphere of influence utterly, you have no expectation of its exact return; your claim is to the ''fresh'' delivery — not “re”delivery — of an [[equivalent]], [[fungible]] asset, alike to the one you originally gave your counterparty in every regard, but not the same. This is fun for PHIL 101 students, but infuriates everyone else, so is best left unexplored as a topic of conversation at dinner parties etc. | [[8.4 - 2000 GMSLA Provision|Except]] for the deletion of the prefix “re” in the 2010 version, this clause is unchanged between the {{2000gmsla}} and the {{gmsla}}. Why delete the prefix “re”? Epistemic purity. If one delivers {{gmsla2000prov|Collateral}} title transfer, the asset leaves your sphere of influence utterly, you have no expectation of its exact return; your claim is to the ''fresh'' delivery — not “re”delivery — of an [[equivalent]], [[fungible]] asset, alike to the one you originally gave your counterparty in every regard, but not the same. This is fun for PHIL 101 students, but infuriates everyone else, so is best left unexplored as a topic of conversation at dinner parties etc. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:53, 4 November 2021
Except for the deletion of the prefix “re” in the 2010 version, this clause is unchanged between the 2000 GMSLA and the 2010 GMSLA. Why delete the prefix “re”? Epistemic purity. If one delivers Collateral title transfer, the asset leaves your sphere of influence utterly, you have no expectation of its exact return; your claim is to the fresh delivery — not “re”delivery — of an equivalent, fungible asset, alike to the one you originally gave your counterparty in every regard, but not the same. This is fun for PHIL 101 students, but infuriates everyone else, so is best left unexplored as a topic of conversation at dinner parties etc.