Electronic messages - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{manual|MI|2002|electronic messages|Section|electronic messages|medium}} | ||
An innocuous definition you would think ''but you would be wrong''. For behold: an electronic message ''excludes'' {{isdaprov|e-mail}}. This was a persuasive factor in the learned judge’s idiosyncratic reasoning in the great case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, a case that illustrates the point that [[little old ladies make bad law]]. | An innocuous definition you would think ''but you would be wrong''. For behold: an electronic message ''excludes'' {{isdaprov|e-mail}}. This was a persuasive factor in the learned judge’s idiosyncratic reasoning in the great case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, a case that illustrates the point that [[little old ladies make bad law]]. | ||
Revision as of 13:46, 16 March 2020
Content and comparisons
No equivalent definition in the 1992 ISDA. There wasn’t really such a thing as email back then.
Summary
An innocuous definition you would think but you would be wrong. For behold: an electronic message excludes e-mail. This was a persuasive factor in the learned judge’s idiosyncratic reasoning in the great case of Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, a case that illustrates the point that little old ladies make bad law.
General discussion
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA electronic messages
See also
References
An innocuous definition you would think but you would be wrong. For behold: an electronic message excludes e-mail. This was a persuasive factor in the learned judge’s idiosyncratic reasoning in the great case of Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, a case that illustrates the point that little old ladies make bad law.