Template:M summ GMRA BSA 1: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Throat-clearing, though note the deliciously hesitant manner with which {{icmacds}} approaches the concept of making the necessary consequential amendments to the {{gmra}} to..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Throat-clearing, though note the deliciously hesitant manner with which {{icmacds}} approaches the concept of making the necessary consequential amendments to the {{gmra}} to make sure it works for {{gmraprov|Buy/Sell Back Transaction}}s. | [[BSA 1 - GMRA Provision|Throat-clearing]], though note the deliciously hesitant manner with which {{icmacds}} approaches the concept of making the necessary consequential amendments to the {{gmra}} to make sure it works for {{gmraprov|Buy/Sell Back Transaction}}s. | ||
Rather than just saying that, where Buy Sell Back Transactions are concerned, the {{gmraprov|Agreement}} ''is'' amended by the for {{gmraprov|Buy/Sellback Annex}}, or even ''[[deeming]]'' the agreement to have been so amended — though that would be feeble-willed enough — here the parties may do not more than wilfully ''[[Construction|construe]]'' the {{gmraprov|Agreement}} ''as if it had been'' amended, the clear implication being, in some formalistic sense, it has ''not''. | Rather than just saying that, where Buy Sell Back Transactions are concerned, the {{gmraprov|Agreement}} ''is'' amended by the for {{gmraprov|Buy/Sellback Annex}}, or even ''[[deeming]]'' the agreement to have been so amended — though that would be feeble-willed enough — here the parties may do not more than wilfully ''[[Construction|construe]]'' the {{gmraprov|Agreement}} ''as if it had been'' amended, the clear implication being, in some formalistic sense, it has ''not''. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:56, 1 June 2022
Throat-clearing, though note the deliciously hesitant manner with which ICMA’s crack drafting squad™ approaches the concept of making the necessary consequential amendments to the Global Master Repurchase Agreement to make sure it works for Buy/Sell Back Transactions.
Rather than just saying that, where Buy Sell Back Transactions are concerned, the Agreement is amended by the for Buy/Sellback Annex, or even deeming the agreement to have been so amended — though that would be feeble-willed enough — here the parties may do not more than wilfully construe the Agreement as if it had been amended, the clear implication being, in some formalistic sense, it has not.
Is there an ontological difference between being contractually obliged to carry on as if your contract has been amended, and actually amending it? Answers on a postcard.
What this might mean should the parties come to litigation-grade blows over the terms of a Buy/Sell Back Transaction we can only wonder. Does it matter?
Given the vanishingly remote possibility of anyone with the intellectual faculties required to maintain a pulse embarking on litigation over a repurchase transaction, we would venture it does not.