From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Three lookouts here.
| |
|
| |
|
| '''One''': ''[[Email]] isn’t included''. According to her majesty’s judiciary, [[email]] is not included and ''does not count as an [[electronic messaging system]]''. Let your klaxons blare. It seems absurd at first glance — [[Jolly Contrarian|some]] would say it seems absurd having read the whole judgment in {{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} and thought about it at length over a hearty walk in the woods — but there it is: that is the law of the land at the time of writing.
| |
|
| |
| '''Two''': This might not so much matter were it not for another spectacular outing for her majesty's judiciary<ref>{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}}</ref>, in which Lord Sumption decided that a “[[no oral modification]]” clause means what it says. Hitherto is has been assumed to be an easy give to pedantic lawyers who have nothing more constructive to say. Strictly interpreting a [[NOM]] clause probably makes sense if you are contemplating the eternal verities on the hard benches of a law library — or your judicial chambers — but it makes none if your job is to manage the cut and thrust of daily operational contract management.
| |
|
| |
| To be sure, most financial institutions have a military-industrial complex handling the negotiation of {{isdama}}s and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass without copperplate script execution. But where the Agreement contains a manifest error, and the parties perform notwithstanding to the intended commercial bargain — who can say?
| |
|
| |
| And as for [[waiver|waivers]] — especially when your [[credit department]] is in the thrall of setting [[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — by the lights of this clause you ''must'' formally confirm these waivers in writing, which is a profound waste of everyone’s time.
| |
|
| |
| '''Three''': Good luck reconciling the above with the {{{{{1}}}|Counterparts and Confirmations}} clause, which says, rightly, that the binding action on a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} is ''the moment the parties first agree it'' — that is, as likely as not, a phone call or Bloomberg chat, or in volume products, an electronic handshake between booking systems. Since a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} ''is'' a modification to the {{isdama}}, the words above ring a bit hollow.
| |
|
| |
| BUT ANYWAY.
| |
Latest revision as of 14:35, 30 May 2023