|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The purist’s objection is that, since a [[representation]] is a ''pre''-contractual statement which induced the wronged party to enter the {{t|contract}} and (ergo) was not and could not be, itself, a contractual term at all — its bolt was shot before minds met — and its remedy was setting aside the contract altogether — ''[[ab initio]]'', as Latin lovers would say — voiding it, rather than suing for damages for breach of something which Q.E.D. was not a term, this provision seems a mite misconceived.
| | {{isda 5(a)(iv) summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| Giving our friends at ISDA the benefit of the doubt we think {{icds}} means “breach of ''[[warranty]]''”, and were really just being loose with terminology. There again, unlike other, more fundamental obligations, misrepresentation as an Event of Default has neither a materiality threshold or the accomodation to the wrongdoer in the form of a [[grace period]] or even a warning [[notice]], so perhaps not. Anyway.
| |
| | |
| This is where that mystifying Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} [[representation]] comes in. <br>
| |
| {{Section 3(d) capsule}}
| |