|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdaanat|9(b)}} | | {{newisdamanual|9(b)}} |
| Three lookouts here.
| |
| | |
| '''One''': according to her majesty’s judiciary, [[email]] ''does not count as an [[electronic messaging system]]''. Let your klaxons blare. It seems absurd at first glance — [[some|Jolly Contrarian]] would say it seems absurd having read the whole judgment in {{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} — but there it is: that is the law of the land at the time of writing.
| |
| | |
| '''Two''': This might not so much matter were it not for another spectacular outing for her majesty's judiciary<ref>{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}}</ref>, in which Lord Sumption decided that a “[[no oral modification]]” clause is effective in law. This probably makes sense if you are sitting in a law library, or judicial chambers, contemplating the eternal verities, but it makes none if you are managing the cut and thrust of operational contract management.
| |
| | |
| That said, most financial institutions have an industrial complex covering the negotiation of {{isdama}}s and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass with copperplate script execution. But where the contract has a manifest error, and the parties perform notwithstanding to the intended commercial bargain - who can say?
| |
| | |
| And as for [[waiver|waivers]] — especially when your [[credit department]] is in the thrall of setting [[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — are a different story.
| |
| | |
| '''Three''': Good luck reconciling the above with the {{isdaprov|Counterparts and Confirmations}} clause, which says, rightly, that the binding action on a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is ''the moment the parties first agree it'' — that is, as likely as not, a phone call or Bloomberg chat, or in volume products, an electronic handshake between booking systems. Since a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} ''is'' a modification to the {{isdama}} the words above ring a bit hollow.
| |
| | |
| {{Seealso}}
| |
| *{{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, on whether email is an electronic messaging system;
| |
| *{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} on whether one can [[orally]] [[amend]] a contract with a “[[no oral modification]]” clause
| |
| | |
| {{ISDA 2002 Section 9 TOC}}
| |