Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(iv): Difference between revisions

Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(iv) (view source)

939 bytes added , 13 March 2020

no edit summary

83,240

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+The purist’s objection is that, since a [[representation]] is a ''pre''-contractual statement which induced the wronged party to enter the {{t|contract}} and (ergo) was not and could not be, itself, a contractual term at all — its bolt was shot before minds met — and its remedy was setting aside the contract altogether — ''[[ab initio]]'', as Latin lovers would say — voiding it, rather than suing for damages for breach of something which Q.E.D. was not a term, this provision seems a mite misconceived.
+Giving our friends at ISDA the benefit of the doubt we think {{icds}} means “breach of ''[[warranty]]''”, and were really just being loose with terminology. There again, unlike other, more fundamental obligations, misrepresentation as an Event of Default has neither a materiality threshold or the accomodation to the wrongdoer in the form of a [[grace period]] or even a warning [[notice]], so perhaps not. Anyway.
 This is where that mystifying Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} [[representation]] comes in. <br>
 {{Section 3(d) capsule}}