Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 12: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Who would have thought a | Who would have thought a {{isdaprov|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 Division]], was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of “[[little old lady]]” case that makes bad law.<ref>As the [[JC]] always says, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''.</ref> 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). | ''No-one'', it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the [[Chancery Division]], was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of “[[little old lady]]” case that makes bad law.<ref>As the [[JC]] always says, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''.</ref> 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 {{1992ma}} which doesn’t mention [[email]]. | 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 {{1992ma}}, which doesn’t mention [[email]]. | ||
While we’re on the subject, who seriously has a [[telex]] in this day and age? | While we’re on the subject, who seriously has a [[telex]] in this day and age? | ||
Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | ||
Revision as of 15:53, 19 March 2020
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 Division, was invited to opine on Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, the kind of “little old lady” case that makes bad law.[1] 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, which doesn’t mention email.
While we’re on the subject, who seriously has a telex in this day and age?
Read in depth about that case here.
- ↑ As the JC always says, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt.