Template:Isda electronic messaging system sum isda92prov: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{Isda electronic messaging system sum|{{{1}}}}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Especially the question, “What is an [[electronic messaging system]]”? | |||
This is defined, by the way, in Section {{isda92prov|14}} as: | |||
{{quote| | |||
{{electronic message definition isda92prov}}}} | |||
''No-one'', it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the [[Chancery Division]], was invited to opine on it in {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}. | |||
Mr Greenclose was the kind of “[[little old lady]]” — well, Welsh hotelier, but you get the picture — who induces judges to make bad law.<ref>As the [[JC]] always says, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''.</ref> | |||
This decision 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]]. Read in-depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | |||
And that was before the entire, interconnected world decided, as an orchestrated whole, to [[Coronavirus|cease the conduct of the business as a physical idea for an indefinite period in early 2020]]. Suddenly, a widely-used and, it was assumed, well-tested notices regime started to look like it might not work. | |||
Revision as of 15:07, 30 August 2024
Especially the question, “What is an electronic messaging system”?
This is defined, by the way, in Section 14 as:
No-one, it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the Chancery Division, was invited to opine on it in Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc.
Mr Greenclose was the kind of “little old lady” — well, Welsh hotelier, but you get the picture — who induces judges to make bad law.[1]
This decision 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. Read in-depth about that case here.
And that was before the entire, interconnected world decided, as an orchestrated whole, to cease the conduct of the business as a physical idea for an indefinite period in early 2020. Suddenly, a widely-used and, it was assumed, well-tested notices regime started to look like it might not work.
- ↑ As the JC always says, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt.