Headings - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{subst:isdap|9(g)}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{nman|isda|2002|9(g)}} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:55, 14 August 2024
Comparisons
This clause is identical in the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Basics
So suddenly, in Section 9(g) of all places, the members of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ wake up out of their collective fever dream, and this is what they say: It’s like, “okay, so we wrote them; we did put them here — hands up, we admit it — but we don’t mean anything by them”. And what is a fellow to make of the headings before Section 9 that, short days ago, being a logical fellow, I read, enjoyed and imbued with symbolic meaning? Am I supposed to just throw that crystalline construct away now? It just seems such a waste.
Don’t you just love lawyers?
Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics👇
|
See also
- Headings generally; that great bane of contractual construction (apparently)
- Interpretation and construction
- Boilerplate Anatomy