|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The major change between the versions was the {{2002ma}}’s express inclusion of [[e-mail]] in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the {{1992ma}}’s [[electronic messaging system]]. This well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even ''modern'' — change persuaded the Chancery Division of the High Court to conclude that electronic messaging system and email are mutually exclusive things, a conclusion which the [[JC]] finds hard to accept, as you will see if you read the {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} case note. | | The major change between the versions was the {{2002ma}}’s express inclusion of [[e-mail]] in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the {{1992ma}}’s [[electronic messaging system]]. Also [[fax]] is excluded as a permissible close-out notice method under the {{1992ma}} but not under the 2002ma}}. |
| | |
| [[File:Faxpaper.png|250px|thumb|left|A John Grisham McGuffin yesterday. well, in about 1986 actually.]]
| |
| Note the restriction on forms of notice for closing out: No [[email]], no [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messages]]. But note ''another'' dissonance: in the {{1992ma}}, close-out notification by [[fax]] was expressly forbidden; in the 2002, it is not: only [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messaging systems]] and [[e-mail]] are ''verboten''. Ironic, seeing how [[fax|faxes]] have got on as a fashionable means of communication in the decades since they were sophisticated enough to be a plot McGuffin for a John Grisham novel.
| |
Revision as of 15:37, 19 March 2020
The major change between the versions was the 2002 ISDA’s express inclusion of e-mail in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the 1992 ISDA’s electronic messaging system. Also fax is excluded as a permissible close-out notice method under the 1992 ISDA but not under the 2002ma}}.