|
|
| (One intermediate revision 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. But at least the {{1992ma}} is equivocal about it: in the {{2002ma}} it is written into the definition of “{{isdaprov|electronic messaging system}}” that it doesn’t include [[email]]. I know 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 had been assumed to be an easy concession to pedantic lawyers to let then can march in triumph back to their clients having had their iatrogenic way, but it now actually means something. 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 [[Documentation unit|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 in any case. And where the agreement contains a [[manifest error]], and the parties perform to its true intent, notwithstanding misdirected written text, does this give one side a free, unconscionable option? — 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.
| |
|
| |
| ====Fax transmission====
| |
| Just what “including a writing evidenced by a facsimile transmission” adds we are not entirely sure. What even is “a” writing?
| |
|
| |
| From here things get only worse. ''Then'' it says “'''AND''' executed by each of the parties” — so what, are you saying you have to get them to sign your fax copy, or re-transmit it over a [[telex]]?
| |
|
| |
| And note, ''[[email]] does not count as an [[electronic messaging system]]''. I know it seems odd, but that is the unambiguous text in the definition of “[[electronic messaging system]]”. So a waiver of a [[NAV trigger|NAV Trigger]] by email, even by an exchange of emails, is not strictly enforceable. Though, of course, waivers unsupported by consideration are generally revocable on fair notice under English law anyway.
| |
|
| |
| As a result, {{icds}} can pat itself on the back for having inserted as long ago as 1992 what, at the time, was an unnecessary clause but which turned out to anticipate a rather woeful decision of the Supreme Court in 2018.
| |
|
| |
| {{no oral modification capsule}}
| |