82,891
edits
Secure Capital v Credit Suisse: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:''56. The only justification advanced by Secure Capital is that, unless the law of the settlement system is identified as the proper law, there will be no-one able to recover substantial damages in {{t|contract}} for breach of the [[Negligent misstatement|misleading statements]] term, thus creating a [[lacuna]] and conferring immunity on Credit Suisse as the issuer. I emphasise “in {{tag|contract}}” because it is not suggested that a claim in {{t|tort]], if sustainable, would be similarly barred.'' <br> | :''56. The only justification advanced by Secure Capital is that, unless the law of the settlement system is identified as the proper law, there will be no-one able to recover substantial damages in {{t|contract}} for breach of the [[Negligent misstatement|misleading statements]] term, thus creating a [[lacuna]] and conferring immunity on Credit Suisse as the issuer. I emphasise “in {{tag|contract}}” because it is not suggested that a claim in {{t|tort]], if sustainable, would be similarly barred.'' <br> | ||
So wait, ''what''? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for ''anyone'' to recover in contract for a breach of a bearer security held in a clearance system, since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is | So wait, ''what''? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for ''anyone'' to recover in contract for a breach of a bearer security held in a clearance system, since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is “perfectly hedged". | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||