Electronic messaging system: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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}} | ||
Is [[email]] an [[electronic messaging system]] as contemplated by Section {{isdaprov|12}} of the {{1992ma}}? No, according to {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}. Nor, as is abundantly clear, in the {{2002ma}}, however counter-intuitive this may seem. | Is [[email]] an [[electronic messaging system]] as contemplated by Section {{isdaprov|12}} of the {{1992ma}}? No, according to {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}. Nor, as is abundantly clear, in the {{2002ma}}, however counter-intuitive this may seem. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{isdaprov|Electronic messages}} | *{{isdaprov|Electronic messages}} | ||
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
Is email an electronic messaging system as contemplated by Section 12 of the 1992 ISDA? No, according to Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc. Nor, as is abundantly clear, in the 2002 ISDA, however counter-intuitive this may seem.