Template:Isda 9 comp

Section {{{{{1}}}|9(a)}}: The first sentence is more or less the same in each version. Then the 2002 ISDA adds a lengthy disclaimer of any pre-contractual representations — presumably, not counting the express ones patiently documented in Section {{{{{1}}}|3}}.
Section {{{{{1}}}|9(b)}}: Section {{{{{1}}}|9(b)}} is, as far as makes any difference whatsoever unchanged between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA. There are some formalistic changes, but — you know.
Section {{{{{1}}}|9(c)}}: Section {{{{{1}}}|9(c)}} is identical as between 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Section {{{{{1}}}|9(d)}}: This clause is identical in the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)}}: But for some finicking around at the margin — allowing {{{{{1}}}|Confirmations}} to be exchanged by telex, fax or email; that kind of thing — the 2002 ISDA is substantially the same as for the 1992 ISDA
Section {{{{{1}}}|9(f)}}: This clause is identical in the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Section {{{{{1}}}|9(g)}}: This clause is identical in the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Section {{{{{1}}}|9(h)}}: There is no strict equivalent to Section 9(h) in the 1992 ISDA. But see Section 2(e), which is a half-arsed attempt at the same thing.

Friends of the JC will know that “half-arsed” isn’t always bad, of course — it can be quite good, in fact — characterising, as it does, the sum total of the JC’s paltry achievements on this barren rock — and in any case, it leaves something to the imagination and we all like a little private intellectual space to indulge our whims and fantasies every now and then, don’t we?

As you step through this monstrosity, going to town on devilish details as it does, you may find it leads you directly into the “I’m sorry I asked” file.

Are you sorry yet? Well, you did ask.