|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdaanat|Non-defaulting Party}} | | {{isdamanual|Non-defaulting Party}} |
| {{comm}}
| |
| To be compared with - well, {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}. Of all things. And {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}}, as well. The difference between a {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} and a {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}}, and the linguistic torture that distinction as inflicted on the race of ISDA lawyers ever since, says everything you need to know about the absurdity of modern commercial law.
| |
| | |
| *''Do say'': “the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} or {{isdaprov|the non-Affected Party}}, as the case may be” over and over again.
| |
| *''Don’t say'': “Is there really no other way you could get across this concept, for crying out loud?”
| |
| {{seealso}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}
| |
| {{isdaanatomy}}
| |