83,492
edits
Template:Isda 13(b) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "===On the disapplication of {{{{{1}}}|13(b)(iii)}}=== Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English courts in your {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, you may wish to...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===On the disapplication of | =====On the disapplication of Section 13(b)(iii)===== | ||
Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English courts in your {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, you may wish to explicitly disapply the proviso to {{{{{1}}}|13(b)}} which provides that nothing in this clause precludes the bringing of {{{{{1}}}|Proceedings}} in another jurisdiction (in the flush language of the {{1992ma}} version; in {{{{{1}}}|13(b)(iii)}} of the {{2002ma}} version). | Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English courts in your {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, you may wish to explicitly disapply the proviso to {{{{{1}}}|13(b)}} which provides that nothing in this clause precludes the bringing of {{{{{1}}}|Proceedings}} in another jurisdiction (in the flush language of the {{1992ma}} version; in {{{{{1}}}|13(b)(iii)}} of the {{2002ma}} version). | ||
Strictly speaking you | Strictly speaking, you shouldn’t need to do this: Section {{{{{1}}}|1(b)}} provides that the inconsistency created by the use of the expression “exclusive jurisdiction” in the Schedule will prevail over the text the Master Agreement. But that won’t stop officious [[Mediocre lawyer|attorneys]] the world over trying. | ||
But, counselor, be warned: if you ''do'' try to explicitly override it — you know, for good measure and everything — and your counterparty pushes back, having deliberately taken the clarifying language out of a draft, you may be in a | But, counselor, be warned: if you ''do'' try to explicitly override it — you know, for good measure and everything — and your counterparty pushes back, having deliberately taken the clarifying language out of a draft, you may be in a ''worse'' position when interpreting the meaning of “[[exclusive jurisdiction]]”, precisely because the counterparty refused to rule out the use of other jurisdictions. A cracking example of the [[anal paradox]] at work. | ||
Don’t be too clever by half, in other words. | Don’t be too clever by half, in other words. | ||
=====“Convention Court”===== | |||
{{Brussels convention capsule}} | |||
{{Lugano convention capsule}} | |||