|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|2002|13(b)|Section|13(b)|medium}}
| | #redirect[[Governing Law and Jurisdiction - ISDA Provision]] |
| ===On the disapplication of {{isdaprov|13(b)(iii)}}===
| |
| Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English courts in your {{isdaprov|Schedule}}, you may wish to explicitly disapply the proviso to {{isdaprov|13(b)}} which provides that nothing in this clause precludes the bringing of {{isdaprov|Proceedings}} in another jurisdiction (in the flush language of the {{1992ma}} version; in {{isdaprov|13(b)(iii)}} of the {{2002ma}} version).
| |
| | |
| Strictly speaking you shouldn't need to do this: Section {{isdaprov|1(b)}} provides that the inconsistency created by the use of the expression “exclusive jurisdiction” in the Schedule will prevail over the text the Master Agreement. But that won’t stop officious [[Mediocre lawyer|attorneys]] the world over trying.
| |
| | |
| But, counselor, be warned: if you ''do'' try to explicitly override it — you know, for good measure and everything — and your counterparty pushes back, having deliberately taken the clarifying language out of a draft, you may be in an inferior position when interpreting the meaning of “exclusive jurisdiction", precisely because the counterparty refused to rule out the use of other jurisdictions. A cracking example of the [[anal paradox]] at work. Don’t be too clever by half.
| |