Headings: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
If you are anything like the [[JC]], the [[headings]] are the only part of the contract you ''do'', with any regularity, read. They orient; they provide a superstructure; they provide ''context'' in a world so crushingly bereft of it. So why exclude them from your semantic consideration? We are at a loss. At best to do so provides a cover to pernicious arguments a miscreant might raise at a later stage to justify enforcing, or resisting, a contractual provision the ''context'' indicated was meant for another purpose altogether. | If you are anything like the [[JC]], the [[headings]] are the only part of the contract you ''do'', with any regularity, read. They orient; they provide a superstructure; they provide ''context'' in a world so crushingly bereft of it. So why exclude them from your semantic consideration? We are at a loss. At best to do so provides a cover to pernicious arguments a miscreant might raise at a later stage to justify enforcing, or resisting, a contractual provision the ''context'' indicated was meant for another purpose altogether. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*{{isdaprov|Headings}} in the ISDA | |||
*[[Inrterpretation]] and [[construction]] |
Revision as of 11:41, 27 October 2020
What is it that the legal eagle so distrusts about headings?
If you are anything like the JC, the headings are the only part of the contract you do, with any regularity, read. They orient; they provide a superstructure; they provide context in a world so crushingly bereft of it. So why exclude them from your semantic consideration? We are at a loss. At best to do so provides a cover to pernicious arguments a miscreant might raise at a later stage to justify enforcing, or resisting, a contractual provision the context indicated was meant for another purpose altogether.
See also
- Headings in the ISDA
- Inrterpretation and construction