83,357
edits
Template:Isda 3(b) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Does it do any practical good? No. | Does it do any practical good? No. | ||
=====It is a warranty, not a representation===== | |||
A standard, but useless, contractual ''[[warranty]]''. It ''can’t'' be a pre-contractual ''[[representation]]'', of course, because the very idea of an “[[event of default]]” depends for its intellectual existence on the conclusion of the contract in which it is embedded. So, it won’t really do to argue there should ''be'' no contract, on grounds of the false representation that a contract that does not exist has not been breached. | |||
=====It is paradoxes all the way down ===== | |||
A [[No event of default or potential event of default - Representation|No EOD rep]] is a classic [[loo paper rep]]: soft, durable, comfy, absorbent — super cute when a wee Labrador pub grabs one end of the streamer and charges round your Italian sunken garden with it — but as a [[credit mitigant]] or a genuine contractual protection, only good for wiping your behind on. | A [[No event of default or potential event of default - Representation|No EOD rep]] is a classic [[loo paper rep]]: soft, durable, comfy, absorbent — super cute when a wee Labrador pub grabs one end of the streamer and charges round your Italian sunken garden with it — but as a [[credit mitigant]] or a genuine contractual protection, only good for wiping your behind on. | ||
Bear in mind you are asking someone — on pain of them being found in [[Fundamental breach|fundamental breach of contract]] — to swear to you they are not already in [[fundamental breach]] of | Bear in mind you are asking someone — on pain of them being found in [[Fundamental breach|fundamental breach of contract]] — to swear to you they are not already in [[fundamental breach]] of contract. Now, how much comfort can you genuinely draw from such promise? Wouldn’t it be better if your [[credit]] team did some cursory [[due diligence]] to establish, independently of the say-so of the prisoner in question, whether there are grounds to suppose it might be in [[fundamental breach]] of {{t|contract}}? | ||
Presuming there are not — folks tend not to publicise their own defaults on private {{t|contract}}s, after all — the real question here is, “do I trust my counterparty?” And to that question, any answer provided by the person whose trustworthiness is in question, carries exactly no informational value. All cretins are liars.<ref>I know, I know.</ref> | Presuming there are not — folks tend not to publicise their own defaults on private {{t|contract}}s, after all — the real question here is, “do I trust my counterparty?” And to that question, any answer provided by the person whose trustworthiness is in question, carries exactly no informational value. All cretins are liars.<ref>I know, I know.</ref> | ||