Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 12: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Who would have thought a {{isdaprov|Notices}} provision would be so controversial? Especially the question, “what is an [[electronic messaging system]]”? | Who would have thought a {{isdaprov|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 Division]], was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of “[[little old lady]]” case that makes bad law.<ref>As the [[JC]] always says, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''.</ref> The learned judge does nothing to dispel the assumption that lawyers are technological Luddites who would apply Tip-Ex to their VDUs if they | ''No-one'', it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the [[Chancery Division]], was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of “[[little old lady]]” case that makes bad law.<ref>As the [[JC]] always says, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''.</ref> 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 {{1992ma}}, which doesn’t mention [[email]]. | 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}}, which doesn’t mention [[email]]. Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | ||
And that was before the entire interconnected world decided, as an orchestrated whole, to cease the conduct of the business as a physical idea for an indefinite period in early 2020. Suddenly, a widely-used and, it was assumed, well-tested notices regime started to look like it might not work. | |||
Oh, and another thing: who seriously has a [[telex]] in this day and age? | |||
Revision as of 12:38, 10 April 2020
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 Division, was invited to opine on Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, the kind of “little old lady” case that makes bad law.[1] 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, which doesn’t mention email. Read in depth about that case here.
And that was before the entire interconnected world decided, as an orchestrated whole, to cease the conduct of the business as a physical idea for an indefinite period in early 2020. Suddenly, a widely-used and, it was assumed, well-tested notices regime started to look like it might not work.
Oh, and another thing: who seriously has a telex in this day and age?
- ↑ As the JC always says, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt.