Template:Isda 5(a)(ii) comp: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Note the addition of {{{{{1}}}|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the {{2002ma}}. Common law purists like the JC will grumble that you don’t really ''need'' to set out repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because ''that’s what it is by definition'' but stating the bleeding obvious has never stopped {{icds}} before. Also, an interesting question: if you ''do'' feel the need to provide for what is in essence an evolvi..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdacomparisons|90346|90347|90348}} | |||
Note the addition of {{{{{1}}}|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the {{2002ma}}. [[Common law]] purists like the [[JC]] will grumble that you don’t really ''need'' to set out [[repudiation]] as a breach justifying termination of a [[contract]], because ''[[Repudiation|that’s what it is by definition]]'' but stating the bleeding obvious has never stopped {{icds}} before. Also, an interesting question: if you ''do'' feel the need to provide for what is in essence an evolving common law remedy, then, to the extent your draw that remedy ''inside'' the cope of the common law remedy — or the common law evolves some new different and remedy that no-one had thought of before — then what? Section {{{{{1}}}|9(d)}} has you covered. Woo-hoo. | Note the addition of {{{{{1}}}|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the {{2002ma}}. [[Common law]] purists like the [[JC]] will grumble that you don’t really ''need'' to set out [[repudiation]] as a breach justifying termination of a [[contract]], because ''[[Repudiation|that’s what it is by definition]]'' but stating the bleeding obvious has never stopped {{icds}} before. Also, an interesting question: if you ''do'' feel the need to provide for what is in essence an evolving common law remedy, then, to the extent your draw that remedy ''inside'' the cope of the common law remedy — or the common law evolves some new different and remedy that no-one had thought of before — then what? Section {{{{{1}}}|9(d)}} has you covered. Woo-hoo. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:49, 9 September 2024
Redlines
- 1987 ⇒ 1992: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1992 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’02 vs. the ’92: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1987 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
Discussion
Note the addition of {{{{{1}}}|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the 2002 ISDA. Common law purists like the JC will grumble that you don’t really need to set out repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because that’s what it is by definition but stating the bleeding obvious has never stopped ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ before. Also, an interesting question: if you do feel the need to provide for what is in essence an evolving common law remedy, then, to the extent your draw that remedy inside the cope of the common law remedy — or the common law evolves some new different and remedy that no-one had thought of before — then what? Section {{{{{1}}}|9(d)}} has you covered. Woo-hoo.