Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 12: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
===“[[Deliver]]”=== | |||
{{notice delivery capsule}} | |||
===[[Email]] vs [[electronic messaging system]]=== | ===[[Email]] vs [[electronic messaging system]]=== | ||
The well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even ''modern'' — addition of [[email]] in the {{ | The well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even ''modern'' — addition of [[email]] in the {{2002ma}}, ''in addition to'' “[[electronic messaging system]]”, persuaded the [[Chancery Division]] of the High Court to conclude that “[[electronic messaging system]]” and “[[email]]” are mutually exclusive things, rather than a basic commentary on {{icds}} inability to let things go — 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. | ||
[[File:Faxpaper.png|250px|thumb|left|A John Grisham McGuffin yesterday. well, in about 1986 actually.]] | [[File:Faxpaper.png|250px|thumb|left|A John Grisham McGuffin yesterday. well, in about 1986 actually.]] | ||
Revision as of 16:24, 19 March 2020
Note the restriction on forms of notice for closing out: No email, no electronic messages. But note another dissonance: in the 1992 ISDA, close-out notification by fax was expressly forbidden; in the 2002, it is not: only electronic messaging systems and e-mail are verboten. Ironic, seeing how 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.
“Deliver”
The Cambridge Dictionary says that to “deliver” is “to take goods, letters, parcels, etc. to people’s houses or places of work”.[1]
Merriam Webster says it means “to take and hand over to or leave for another”.[2]
The Collins Dictionary of British English, in a rather modishly modern English format, tells us “If you deliver something somewhere, you take it there”.[3]
A bit more challengingly, the Lexico Oxford Dictionary says it means “bring and hand over (a letter, parcel, or goods) to the proper recipient or address”. Oxford’s language suggests a “handing” from sender to recipient, though a commonsense application of delivery through a letterbox to an address says the only “hands” involved are the sender’s.
An agent for the recipient does not need to be there; just that the notice is conveyed to the appointed place. It is no good refusing to answer the door, hiding behind the sofa or blocking up your letterbox with Araldite: if the sender’s agent brings a notice to your designated address, even by regular post, the sender has “delivered” it.
If it is, literally, impossible to arrange even an agent to hand-deliver a package, what then? Before the spring of 2020, most learned commentators would have regarded such a scenario as so absurd as to not dignify an answer. By April, ISDA was seeking advice about it.
Email vs electronic messaging system
The well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even modern — addition of email in the 2002 ISDA, in addition to “electronic messaging system”, persuaded the Chancery Division of the High Court to conclude that “electronic messaging system” and “email” are mutually exclusive things, rather than a basic commentary on ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ inability to let things go — a conclusion which the JC finds hard to accept, as you will see if you read the Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc case note.
CSA
Note that the 1995 CSA subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph 9(c) and 11(g).