|
|
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{oslaanat|15}}What on earth, you might muse, is a “course of dealings”? According to [BusinessDictionary.com www.businessdictionary.com], it is “a pattern of normal business conduct between two parties. It is established over a period involving several {{oslaprov|transactions}}, and may be used as a reliable indicator of how they intend to deal in the future.” | | {{Manual|MSO|1995|15|Clause|NA|medium}} |
| | |
| In any weather, it adds nothing but heft to this clause. This is a standard termination on notice clause for the {{osla}} itself, but doesn’t cut across the terms — and in particular, any stipulated ''[[term]]'' for any loan, which will be set out in a {{oslaprov|Borrowing Request}}<ref>Curiously, the [[OSLA]] doesn’t define a “{{oslaprov|loan}}” as such, but rather refers to the terms, accepted by the {{oslaprov|Lender}}, of a {{oslaprov|Borrowing Request}}. This is [[The farmer and the sheep|counting-sheep-legs-and-dividing-by-four]] behaviour, [[calculated]] to discombobulate non-specialists and keep them away. They made a much better fist of it in the {{tag|GMSLA}}.
| |
| | |
| So before you can use this clause, you must validly terminate each loan under the terms of its {{oslaprov|Borrowing Request}}.
| |
| | |
| ===Clause comparison with {{tag|GMSLA}}===
| |
| The equivalent of this clause in the {{Gmsla}} is Clause {{gmslaprov|16}}:
| |
| {{gmslasnap|16}}
| |
| | |
| ===Clause comparison with {{{isdama}}===
| |
| By way of ''further'' comparison, the {{isdama}} doesn't have a general termination right of this sort ''at all''.
| |