|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|2002|5(c)|Section|0|medium}} | | {{manual|MI|2002|5(c)|Section|0|medium}} |
| In which the [[JC]] thinks he might have found a ''bona fide'' use for the awful legalism “[[and/or]]”. Crikey.
| |
|
| |
| What to do if the same thing counts as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} ''[[and]]'' an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}.
| |
|
| |
| Why do we need this? Remember an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} is an apocalyptic disaster scenario which blows your whole agreement up with extreme prejudice; a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is just “one of those things” which justifies termination, but may relate only to a single transaction: it isn’t something one needs necessarily to hang one’s head about.
| |
|
| |
| A {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} is something that is so beyong one’s control or expectation that it shouldn't count as an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or even a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} ''at all''.
| |
|
| |
| An Event of Default has more severe consequences for the [[counterparty]]. Well, the whole point about force majeure is that it is meant to give you an excuse not to perform your agreement. and an Illegality is only a Termination Event (one can’t be criticised if they go and change the law on you, can one?), so
| |
|
| |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *[[Force majeure]] (wherein for a giggle you will find a sample ultimate force majeure clause)
| |
| *[[Event of default]]
| |
| *[[Termination event]]
| |