Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 9(f): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Waiver: a place where the laws of the New World and the Old diverge. Those with an English qualification will snort, barking reference to {{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railwa..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Waiver: a place where the laws of the New World and the Old diverge. Those with an English qualification will snort, barking reference to {{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway}} and say Section 9(f) is inconsequential fluff; those acquainted with the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] will tread more carefully, lest | [[Waiver]]: a place where the laws of the New World and the Old diverge. Does one really need a contractual provision dealing with the consequences of a fellow’s good-natured ''indulgence'' when carrying on commerce under an {{isdama}}? Those with an English qualification will snort, barking reference to {{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway}} and say this Section 9(f) is inconsequential fluff that goes without saying; those acquainted with the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] and the monstrous slabs of Manhattan will tread more carefully, lest they create a “[[course of dealing]]”. | ||
Since the {{isdama}} was designed with ''either'' legal system in mind, {{icds}} came up with something that would work in either. to be sure it may offend stylists and minimalists like the [[JC]] who ply their trade in the old country, ''but it does no harm''. | |||
{{Course of dealing vs waiver}} | {{Course of dealing vs waiver}} | ||
Revision as of 16:43, 15 April 2020
Waiver: a place where the laws of the New World and the Old diverge. Does one really need a contractual provision dealing with the consequences of a fellow’s good-natured indulgence when carrying on commerce under an ISDA Master Agreement? Those with an English qualification will snort, barking reference to Hughes v Metropolitan Railway and say this Section 9(f) is inconsequential fluff that goes without saying; those acquainted with the Uniform Commercial Code and the monstrous slabs of Manhattan will tread more carefully, lest they create a “course of dealing”.
Since the ISDA Master Agreement was designed with either legal system in mind, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ came up with something that would work in either. to be sure it may offend stylists and minimalists like the JC who ply their trade in the old country, but it does no harm.
Different approaches to evidence of the contract in the UK and US
England and the US have taken different paths when it comes to respecting the sanctity of that four-cornered document representing the contract. Whereas the parol evidence rule gives the written form a kind of “epistemic priority” over any other articulation of the abstract deal in the common law, in the new world greater regard will be had of how the parties behave when performing their contract, and less significance on what at the outset they wrote down.
So whereas in England action to not insist upon strict contractual rights will have scarce effect on those rights (at best a waiver by estoppel might arise, at least until it is withdrawn[1]), in the United States Uniform Commercial Code[2] a “course of dealing” between the parties at variance with the written terms of their bargain will tend to override those written terms. Thus, by not insisting on the strict terms of her deal, an American risks losing that deal, and will be taken by the course of dealing to have agreed something else; whereas an Englishman, by granting such an indulgence, at worst suspends his strict contractual rights but does not lose them.
In this way the parol evidence rule is less persuasive in American jurisprudence than in British.