Notices - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Who would have thought a notices provision would be so controversial? Especially the question "what is an [[electronic messaging system]]"? No-one, it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the Chancery decision was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of "little old lady" case that makes bad law. The learned judge does nothing to dispel the assumption that lawyers are technological luddites who would apply Tip-Ex to their VDUs if they didn't have someone to do their typing for them (and if they knew what a VDU was). | Who would have thought a notices provision would be so controversial? Especially the question "what is an [[electronic messaging system]]"? No-one, it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the Chancery decision was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of "little old lady" case that makes bad law. The learned judge does nothing to dispel the assumption that lawyers are technological luddites who would apply Tip-Ex to their VDUs if they didn't have someone to do their typing for them (and if they knew what a VDU was). | ||
For there it was held that | For there it was held that “[[email]]” is not an “[[electronic messaging system]]” and, as such, was an invalid means for serving a [[close-out]] notice under the {{1992ma}}. | ||
Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. |
Revision as of 12:42, 13 March 2017
Who would have thought a notices provision would be so controversial? Especially the question "what is an electronic messaging system"? No-one, it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the Chancery decision was invited to opine on Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, the kind of "little old lady" case that makes bad law. The learned judge does nothing to dispel the assumption that lawyers are technological luddites who would apply Tip-Ex to their VDUs if they didn't have someone to do their typing for them (and if they knew what a VDU was).
For there it was held that “email” is not an “electronic messaging system” and, as such, was an invalid means for serving a close-out notice under the 1992 ISDA.
Read in depth about that case here.
In gory detail
1992 ISDA
unless the date of that delivery (or attempted delivery) or that receipt, as applicable, is not a Local Business Day or that communication is delivered (or attempted) or received, as applicable, after the close of business on a Local Business Day, in which case that communication shall be deemed given and effective on the first following day that is a Local Business Day. |
2002 ISDA
unless the date of that delivery (or attempted delivery) or that receipt, as applicable, is not a Local Business Day or that communication is delivered (or attempted) or received, as applicable, after the close of business on a Local Business Day, in which case that communication will be deemed given and effective on the first following day that is a Local Business Day. |
Commentary
Note that the 1995 CSA subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph 9(c) and 11(g).