Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 5(a)(ii): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Note the addition of {{isdaprov|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the {{2002ma}}. You don't really need to define repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, bec...")
 
(Replaced content with "{{isda 5(a)(ii) comp|isdaprov}}")
Tag: Replaced
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Note the addition of {{isdaprov|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the {{2002ma}}. You don't really need to define repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because ''[[Repudiation|that’s what it is by definition]]'' but that has never stopped {{icds}} before.
{{isda 5(a)(ii) comp|isdaprov}}

Latest revision as of 15:19, 24 December 2023

Note the addition of Repudiation of Agreement to the 2002 ISDA. Common law purists like the JC will grumble that you don’t really need to set out repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because that’s what it is by definition but stating the bleeding obvious has never stopped ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ before. Also, an interesting question: if you do feel the need to provide for what is in essence an evolving common law remedy, then, to the extent your draw that remedy inside the cope of the common law remedy — or the common law evolves some new different and remedy that no-one had thought of before — then what? Section 9(d) has you covered. Woo-hoo.