|
|
| (2 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''. You can ''on'' terminate transactions, not the master agreement construct which sits around them. This is to do with paranoid fears about the efficacy of netting, but I like to think it has unleashed on the world an army of wight-walking zombie ISDAs, doomed to roam the earth until the day of judgment, apropos nothing but there, just in case Aslan returns, Sauron is reincarnated etc.
| |