Notices - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fullanat2|isda|12(a)|2002|12(a)|1992}} | |||
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 decision was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of "little old lady" case that makes bad law. 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). | 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 decision was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of "little old lady" case that makes bad law. 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). | ||
Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | ||
====Commentary==== | ====Commentary==== | ||
Note that the {{csa}} subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph {{csaprov|9(c)}} and {{csaprov|11(g)}}. | Note that the {{csa}} subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph {{csaprov|9(c)}} and {{csaprov|11(g)}}. |
Revision as of 12:42, 13 March 2017
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 decision was invited to opine on Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, the kind of "little old lady" case that makes bad law. 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.
Read in depth about that case here.
Commentary
Note that the 1995 CSA subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph 9(c) and 11(g).