Template:Isda electronic messaging system sum

From The Jolly Contrarian
Revision as of 14:58, 30 August 2024 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Especially the question, “What is an electronic messaging system”? This is defined, by the way, in Section {{{{{1}}}|14}} as: {{quote| {{electronic message definition {{{1}}}}}}} ''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 i...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Especially the question, “What is an electronic messaging system”?

This is defined, by the way, in Section {{{{{1}}}|14}} as:

{{electronic message definition {{{1}}}}}

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.