Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 13: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{jc:{{ | {{jc:{{embedded template tester}} }} | ||
Largely the same, in practical effect, between the two versions: the clause grants the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the governing law you have chosen: you can launch proceedings wherever you like, but you can’t complain if they are launched in a home court, which leaves open that you ''might'' complain if they are launched in some other, inconvenient, court. | Largely the same, in practical effect, between the two versions: the clause grants the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the governing law you have chosen: you can launch proceedings wherever you like, but you can’t complain if they are launched in a home court, which leaves open that you ''might'' complain if they are launched in some other, inconvenient, court. | ||
Revision as of 09:09, 20 May 2023
[Template fetch failed for https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:PASS&action=render: HTTP 404] Largely the same, in practical effect, between the two versions: the clause grants the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the governing law you have chosen: you can launch proceedings wherever you like, but you can’t complain if they are launched in a home court, which leaves open that you might complain if they are launched in some other, inconvenient, court.
No doubt a litigation lawyer would be outraged at this suggestion that the versions mean different things, but life’s too short.
2002 version of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ were properly phoning it in on this one. There are some changes, but none of them mean anything.