Template:M summ 2002 ISDA rate of exchange: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "You could scarcely ask for better example of an unnecessary definition. In the'r hearts, you sense {{icds}} knew this, for they couldn’t find it in themselves to even c..."
 
Replaced content with "{{isda rate of exchange summ|isdaprov}}"
Tag: Replaced
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
You could scarcely ask for  better example of an unnecessary [[definition]]. In the'r hearts, you sense {{icds}} knew this, for they couldn’t find it in themselves to even capitalise it. In the {{1992ma}}, it didn’t even make the {{isdaprov|Definitions}} section, but was half-heartedly tacked onto the end of the {{isdaprov|Contractual Currency}} section — it made it into the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Definitions}} Section only because it also wangled its way into a new {{isdaprov|Set-off}} clause at Section {{isdaprov|6(f)}}.
{{isda rate of exchange summ|isdaprov}}
 
But if the two guiding principles are don’t create definitions you only use once or twice, and don’t define things whose ordinary meaning is patently obvious, then {{isdaprov|rate of exchange}} comprehensively fails the main criteria for needing a definition. The [[JC]]’s general view is, all other things being equal, to ease comprehension, ''eschew'' [[definitions]].
 
And also, could they not have used “exchange rate”, instead of {{isdaprov|rate of exchange}}?

Latest revision as of 08:33, 15 April 2020

You could scarcely ask for a less necessary definition. In their hearts, you sense ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ knew this, for they couldn’t find it in themselves to even capitalise it. In the 1992 ISDA, rate of exchange didn’t even make the Definitions section, but was half-heartedly tacked onto the end of a clause halfway through the Contractual Currency section. It made it into the 2002 ISDA’s Definitions Section only because it somehow wangled its unecessary way into the new Set-off clause (Section 6(f) of the 2002 ISDA).

But if two guiding principles of defining terms are (i) don’t, for terms you only use once or twice, and (ii) don’t, if the meaning of the thing you are considering defining is patently obvious — then “rate of exchange” comprehensively fails the main criteria of a good definition.

The JC’s general view is, all other things being equal, to ease comprehension, eschew definitions.

Also, could they not have used “exchange rate”, instead of rate of exchange?

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_summ_2002_ISDA_rate_of_exchange&oldid=43471"