No consequential loss - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions

No consequential loss - GMSLA Provision (view source)

4 bytes removed , 5 September 2019

no edit summary

82,891

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ===Subject to Paragraphs {{gmslaprov|9}} and {{gmslaprov|11}}===
-But what of the cagey [[caveat]] about Paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}} (''{{gmslaprov|Failure to Deliver}}'') and Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} (''{{gmslaprov|Consequences of Event of Default}}'')? Search me. There is no obvious exception to the exclusion of [[consequential loss]] in paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}}, which talks about {{gmslaprov|Buy-In}}s and other self-help remedies which militate pretty hard ''against'' consequential damages. Likewise, Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} goes to some lengths to articuilate anbd itemise the termination amount calculations, and there is nothing in there that talks about loss of opportunities — see Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11.3}} in particular.
+But what of the cagey [[caveat]] about Paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}} (''{{gmslaprov|Failure to Deliver}}'') and Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} (''{{gmslaprov|Consequences of an Event of Default}}'')? Search me. There is no obvious exception to the ban on [[consequential loss]] in paragraph {{gmslaprov|9}}, which talks about {{gmslaprov|Buy-In}}s and other self-help remedies which militate pretty hard ''against'' consequential damages. Likewise, Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11}} goes to some lengths to articuilate anbd itemise the termination amount calculations, and there is nothing in there that talks about loss of opportunities — see Paragraph {{gmslaprov|11.3}} in particular.
 {{sa}}