|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The major change between the versions was the {{2002ma}}’s express inclusion of [[e-mail]] in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the {{1992ma}}’s [[electronic messaging system]]. This well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even ''modern'' — change persuaded the Chancery Division of the High Court to conclude that electronic messaging system and email are mutually exclusive things, a conclusion which the [[JC]] finds hard to accept, as you will see if you read the {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} case note.
| | {{isda 12 comp|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| [[File:Faxpaper.png|250px|thumb|left|A John Grisham McGuffin yesterday. well, in about 1986 actually.]]
| |
| Note the restriction on forms of notice for closing out: No [[email]], no [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messages]]. But note ''another'' dissonance: in the {{1992ma}}, close-out notification by [[fax]] was expressly forbidden; in the 2002, it is not: only [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messaging systems]] and [[e-mail]] are ''verboten''. Ironic, seeing how [[fax|faxes]] have got on as a fashionable means of communication in the decades since they were sophisticated enough to be a plot McGuffin for a John Grisham novel.
| |
Latest revision as of 12:23, 5 January 2024
The major change between the versions of Section 12 (Notices) was the 2002 ISDA’s inclusion of e-mail as a means of communication in addition to the 1992 ISDA’s electronic messaging system. Also, fax and electronic messaging system are not permitted means of serving close-out communications (i.e., under Sections 5 and 6) under the 1992 ISDA, but fax is permitted under the 2002 ISDA, whereas electronic messaging system and email are not. Got all that?