Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc: Difference between revisions

Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc (view source)

704 bytes added , 20 May 2016

82,891

edits

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 {{Box|'''Learning Number 1''': Don't set an option expiry period that obliges you to serve notice in the Grundle.}}
-Error no. 2 - less of a schoolboy one, in this reviewer's opinion, was to assume that an email - being, after all, an '''electronic''' mail sent over a computer '''system''' (so sayeth [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email Wikipedia]) fell within the meaning of an "electronic messaging system".
+Error no. 2 - less of a schoolboy one, in this reviewer's opinion, was to assume that an email - being, after all, an '''electronic''' mail '''message''' sent over a computer '''system''' (so sayeth [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email Wikipedia]) fell within the meaning of an "electronic messaging system". Not so, thought Andrews J. because
+{{box|In 1992, email was not in common use and thus the reference to “electronic messaging system” is unlikely to have been intended to include it.}}
+The court does not seem to have heard any evidence on this point. A cursory glance at Wikipedia would suggest this is wildly wrong: the SMTP protocol - over which email is still transferred today - was published in 1982. It is true that the '''expression''' "email" didn't enter the lexicon until 1993 - ''but that is consistent with nascent email being treated as a kind of electronic messaging system''.
+Andrews J compared with the equivalent provision in the {{2002ma}}. This DOES include email.