82,882
edits
Notices - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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). | 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 | 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]]'''. | Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''. | ||