Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption Event: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Settlement Disruption Event - Emissions Annex Provision|Oft]] mentioned in a similar breath to a {{euaprov|Suspension Event}} and a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}}, a Settlement Disruption Event is one of the external events which leads to a suspension of obligations, pending the lifting of the disruption, that are set out in Paragraph {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{emissionsannex}}. | [[Settlement Disruption Event - Emissions Annex Provision|Oft]] mentioned in a similar breath to a {{euaprov|Suspension Event}} and a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}}, a Settlement Disruption Event is one of the external events which leads to a suspension of obligations, pending the lifting of the disruption, that are set out in the {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption}} provisions of Paragraph {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{emissionsannex}}. | ||
There is a wonderful [[nested uncertainty avoidance device]] buried in the redundant second paragraph, which effectively says, for the avoidance of doubt, this avoidance of doubt paragraph is intended to avoid doubt, and not actually change anything. Here [[Ourobos]] reaches around and eats its own tail: a clause which appears to do something — for why else in a competently-composed passage would it be there? — appears to be there simply to deny its own ''raison d’etre''. | There is a wonderful [[nested uncertainty avoidance device]] buried in the redundant second paragraph, which effectively says, for the avoidance of doubt, this avoidance of doubt paragraph is intended to avoid doubt, and not actually change anything. Here [[Ourobos]] reaches around and eats its own tail: a clause which appears to do something — for why else in a competently-composed passage would it be there? — appears to be there simply to deny its own ''raison d’etre''. | ||
Revision as of 12:43, 27 June 2022
Oft mentioned in a similar breath to a Suspension Event and a Failure to Deliver, a Settlement Disruption Event is one of the external events which leads to a suspension of obligations, pending the lifting of the disruption, that are set out in the Settlement Disruption provisions of Paragraph (d)(i)(4) of the ISDA EU Emissions Annex.
There is a wonderful nested uncertainty avoidance device buried in the redundant second paragraph, which effectively says, for the avoidance of doubt, this avoidance of doubt paragraph is intended to avoid doubt, and not actually change anything. Here Ourobos reaches around and eats its own tail: a clause which appears to do something — for why else in a competently-composed passage would it be there? — appears to be there simply to deny its own raison d’etre.