Marine Trade v Pioneer: Difference between revisions

Marine Trade v Pioneer (view source)

2 bytes added , 23 May 2023

no edit summary

82,853

edits

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ===Permanence of Section 2(a)(iii)===
-But would a payment, which was meant to have been due but was not because the Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} [[conditions precedent]] were not satisfied, come back to life and be required if the defaulting party subsequently satisfied  its Section 2(a)(iii) conditions? On Flaux J thought ''no'': the conditions were "once and for all" and if not satisfied on the day the payment was due, then the party would ''never'' have to make that payment. It was cancelled.
+But would a payment, which was meant to have been due but was not because the Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} [[conditions precedent]] were not satisfied, come back to life and be required if the defaulting party subsequently satisfied  its Section 2(a)(iii) conditions? Flaux J thought ''no'': the conditions were assessed for once and for all on the due date. If not satisfied on the then, then the party would ''never'' have to make that payment. It was cancelled.
 This is ''mad''. After all, if an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} is subsequently designated, any payments suspended under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} are considered when determining the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}.