Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc: Difference between revisions

Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc (view source)

1,067 bytes removed , 12 June 2023

no edit summary

83,038

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-as case opining on the meaning of the apparently harmless {{isdaprov|Notices}} Section (Section {{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}, and in particular what is an [[electronic messaging system]] and more to the point what it is not - in the opinion of learned Justice Andrews, and includes [[email]].
+{{essay|casenote|Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc|}}
-Mister Greenclose, one of those fabled little old ladies of the law, was in fact a sophisticated and successful owner of family business running small luxury hotels. he entered an extendable collar transaction under a 1992 {{isdama}} - the edition is important - which would expire on 30 December unless NatWest gave proper notice of its extension before that time.
-Schoolboy error no.1 by NatWest was to provide for a notice deadline to expires when the recipient is highly likelihood to be out of the office. But that's as may be.
-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".