|
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{fullanat2|isda|12|2002|12|1992}} | | {{nman|isda|2002|12}} |
| Who would have thought a notices provision would be so controversial? Especially the question "what is an [[electronic messaging system]]"? No-one, it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the Chancery decision was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of "little old lady" case that makes bad law. The learned judge does nothing to dispel the assumption that lawyers are technological luddites who would apply Tip-Ex to their VDUs if they didn't have someone to do their typing for them (and if they knew what a VDU was).
| |
| | |
| For there it was held that “[[email]]” is not an “[[electronic messaging system]]” and, as such, was an invalid means for serving a [[close-out]] notice under the {{1992ma}}.
| |
| | |
| Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''.
| |
| ====Commentary====
| |
| Note that the {{csa}} subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph {{csaprov|9(c)}} and {{csaprov|11(g)}}.
| |
| | |
| | |
| {{isdaanatomy}}
| |