Definitions and Inconsistency - VM CSA Provision

From The Jolly Contrarian
Revision as of 04:33, 27 December 2019 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2016 VM CSA Anatomy™


In a Nutshell Section 1(a):

1(a) Definitions and Inconsistency. Capitalised terms not otherwise defined are defined in Paragraph 10. This Annex prevails over the Schedule, and Paragraph 11 prevails over the rest of this Annex. “Transfer” means, for cash, payment and, otherwise, delivery.
view template

2016 VM CSA full text of Section 1(a):

1(a) Definitions and Inconsistency. Capitalised terms not otherwise defined in this Annex or elsewhere in this Agreement have the meanings specified pursuant to Paragraph 10, and all references in this Annex to Paragraphs are to Paragraphs of this Annex. In the event of any inconsistency between this Annex and the other provisions of this Schedule, this Annex will prevail, and in the event of any inconsistency between Paragraph 11 and the other provisions of this Annex, Paragraph 11 will prevail. For the avoidance of doubt, references to “transfer” in this Annex mean, in relation to cash, payment and, in relation to other assets, delivery.
view template

Related Agreements
Click here for the text of Section 1(a) in the 1995 English Law CSA
Click here for the text of Section 1(a) in the 2016 English Law VM CSA
Click [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|here]] for the text of the equivalent, Section [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|{{{3}}}]] in the 2016 NY Law VM CSA
Comparisons
1995 CSA and 2016 VM CSA: click for comparison
{{nycsadiff {{{3}}}}}

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

A paragraph of unremarkable, if unnecessary, throat-clearing, though marred by a bizarre for the avoidance of doubt rider which functions as both a non-sequitur — no one was talking about transfers here, much less was in any particular state of confusion about them so why bring it up now? — but also the classic self-hack: rather than avoiding doubt, this rider is calculated to do nothing quite so much as introduce it. Wait: was I meant to be doubting something here? Should I have been confused? Have I missed something?

There is nothing a cheerful attorney likes more than to worry about things, and she will toss sleeplessly for nights on end, fully occupied by questions such as — is “delivery” of cash different from “payment” of it? Is there something legally significant about “payment” that | somehow missed in Banking Law 302, in 1989?

See also