Template:M summ 2002 ISDA rate of exchange

You could scarcely ask for better example of an unnecessary definition. In the'r hearts, you sense ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ knew this, for they couldn’t find it in themselves to even capitalise it. In the 1992 ISDA, it didn’t even make the Definitions section, but was half-heartedly tacked onto the end of the Contractual Currency section — it made it into the 2002 ISDA’s Definitions Section only because it also wangled its way into a new Set-off clause at Section 6(f).

But if the two guiding principles are don’t create definitions you only use once or twice, and don’t define things whose ordinary meaning is patently obvious, then rate of exchange comprehensively fails the main criteria for needing a definition. The JC’s general view is, all other things being equal, to ease comprehension, eschew definitions.

And also, could they not have used “exchange rate”, instead of rate of exchange?