Representations - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|3}} | {{isdaanat|3}} | ||
==={{isdaprov|Additional Representation}}s=== | ==={{isdaprov|Additional Representation}}s=== | ||
The {{isdaprov|representations}} set out in Section {{isdaprov|3}} are, of course, the boring ones. The {{isdaprov|Additional Representation}}s that are pulled in here and have the same effect on the Events of Default as do these boring ones — over which the parties will tortuously argue during the negotiation process, are lot more interesting — literary, really — reflecting as they do the dark paranoia lurking deep in the heart of your favourite [[credit officer]]. | The {{isdaprov|representations}} set out in Section {{isdaprov|3}} are, of course, the boring ones. The {{isdaprov|Additional Representation}}s that are pulled in here and have the same effect on the Events of Default as do these boring ones — over which the parties will tortuously argue during the negotiation process, are lot more interesting — literary, really — reflecting as they do the dark [[paranoia]] lurking deep in the heart of your favourite [[credit officer]]. | ||
{{deemed repetition}} | {{deemed repetition}} | ||
Revision as of 13:16, 12 July 2019
|
ISDA Anatomy™
3(b) Absence of Certain Events. No Event of Default or Potential Event of Default or, to its knowledge, Termination Event is in existence for that party or would happen if it entered or performed this Agreement or any Credit Support Document.
3(b) Absence of Certain Events. No Event of Default or Potential Event of Default or, to its knowledge, Termination Event with respect to it has occurred and is continuing and no such event or circumstance would occur as a result of its entering into or performing its obligations under this Agreement or any Credit Support Document to which it is a party.
|
Additional Representations
The representations set out in Section 3 are, of course, the boring ones. The Additional Representations that are pulled in here and have the same effect on the Events of Default as do these boring ones — over which the parties will tortuously argue during the negotiation process, are lot more interesting — literary, really — reflecting as they do the dark paranoia lurking deep in the heart of your favourite credit officer.
On representations and warranties generally
Representations
A representation is a statement of present or historical fact made by one person to another outside the bounds of a contract that induces that other person to enter a contract. By its nature, a representation is therefore not a term of the contract itself — it cannot be; it was made before the contract came about; it is an egg to the contract’s chicken — although that won’t stop Legal riddling your contract with representations and, usually, co-branding them as warranties for good measure. A false representation may entitle an innocent to claim under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and rescind its contract, or claim damages for negligent misstatement in tort.
Being founded on the tortious action on negligent misstatement, one of the ingredients of an actionable misrepresentation is that the representer somehow fell short of her duty of care: the simple fact that the representation was false might not be not enough if she can’t cannot reasonably have known it was false. This feels a more significant distinction than it is: tort governs situations where the parties, being randoms, have not had the opportunity to document their duties to one another, so the law steps in to help. Where they have, through the medium of contract, the law says, “you don’t need my clever appeals to the judgment of prudent people on public transport in south London to work out how you must treat each other, because you have worked it out for yourselves.”
Where the parties have written down their respective duties, but they still appeal to a tortious standard — which is what they are doing by writing “representations” into a contract — they are admitting to confusion between the laws of tort and contract. Here the fellow on the Clapham omnibus would surely say that the abstract duty of care maps exactly on to what the parties have voluntarily agreed. Why would it be any different? To be “negligent” under a contract is surely to breach it; no more and no less.[1]
Warranties
A warranty is a statement of a present or historical fact made as a term of a contract. If a warrantor breaches its warranty the injured party might claim damages for the breach of contract and sue for damages, but cannot rescind it altogether. To set aside the contract as if it never happened — to void it, ab initio — you would need to prove a misrepresentation from someone before the contract, that induced you to enter it.
Since a warranty is creature of contract, one’s liability for its failure is absolute: if a warranty fails, you’re in the schtook: it is no defence that you could not reasonably have known that the matters warranted were not true, or that some mendacious interloper (other than the other party to the contract) has intervened to defeat your best intentions unless that kind of conditionality is written into the contract. This is the appeal of a written contract: the parties can write down with infinite, tedious precision, what they mean to say, and what they say they mean, one-hundred per cent.
It also points up the logical befuddlement behind the idea of writing representations into a contract.
3 Representations
3(a) Basic Representations
3(b) Absence of certain events
3(c) Absence of litigation
3(d) Accuracy of Specified Information
3(e) Payer Tax Representations
3(f) Payee Tax Representations
3(g) No Agency (2002 ISDA only)
See also
References
- ↑ This is why the idea of “gross negligence” is all the more abstruse.