Counterparts and Confirmations - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Counterparts and Confirmations - ISDA Provision (view source)

Revision as of 22:17, 3 January 2024

1,965 bytes removed ,  3 January
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{isdaanat|9(e)}}
{{newisdamanual|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>.
 
{{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.
 
so, a reconciliations dude who sends out a confirm which carelessly misinterprets the trade log is not making a contractual mistake: he is incorrectly recording the contract. The reconciliations dude who sends our a confirm which corrects an error made by the trader has no mandate to make that change. The error is the traders. She should live with it, and throw herself at the mercy of the jurisprudence of contractual mistakes if need be. It is not for operations to pull her out of a hole.
 
Note also the addition of [[e-mail]] as a means of communication to the 2002 version (email not really having been a “thing” in 1992). This caused all kinds of [[fear and loathing]] amongst the judiciary, when asked about it, as can be seen in the frightful case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
 
{{seealso}}
*[[Mistake]]
*[[Counterparts]]
*[[Greenclose]]
{{ref}}
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/24543...82218"

Navigation menu