Counterparts and Confirmations - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Counterparts and Confirmations - ISDA Provision (view source)

Revision as of 12:42, 8 August 2018

6 bytes added , 8 August 2018

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,448

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{isdaanat|9(e)}}
-[[Counterpart]]s''': There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of [[counterparts]] clauses elsewhere<ref>In the [[counterparts]] article, as a matter of fact.</ref>.
+'''[[Counterpart]]s''': There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of [[counterparts]] clauses elsewhere<ref>In the [[counterparts]] article, as a matter of fact.</ref>.
-{{isdaprov|Confirmation}}s''': The prime thing to notice here is that the {{isdaprov|Confirmation}} is evidence of the {{isdaprov|Transaction}}, ''but it does not override the original {{isdaprov|Transaction}} terms, if they are different''. That is, the binding communication may be a bloomberg chat or a phone call. (sits knd of uneasily with that Entire Agreement clause, but still.
+'''{{isdaprov|Confirmation}}s''': The prime thing to notice here is that the {{isdaprov|Confirmation}} is evidence of the {{isdaprov|Transaction}}, ''but it does not override the original {{isdaprov|Transaction}} terms, if they are different''. That is, the binding communication may be a bloomberg chat or a phone call. (sits knd of uneasily with that Entire Agreement clause, but still.
 There are some very good reasons for this. Firstly, the original trade was done by the trader with the trading mandate. the confirmation will be punted out by some dude in ops who might not be able to read the trader’s handwriting. Ops can and will get things wrong. That is correctable on the record. The trader doesn't get things wrong. If she does, you're into [[mistake]] territory. The law on [[contractual mistake]]s is beloved by students of the law and misunderstood by everyone else.