83,577
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
“'''([[present or future]])'''”: Tossed out, no doubt, as a universal redundant catch-all, it doesn’t quite work in a security charging clause. You ''can’t'', actually, grant a [[fixed charge]] over something you haven’t yet delivered into the account you are charging, you can’t identify, and which you aren’t yet — by the very theory of the game — even obliged to deliver into that account. There’s an ontological problem here. It goes deep. For how are you supposed to identify with ''any'' certainty what your [[future]] {{imcsdprov|Posted Credit Support (IM)}} will be, before it has been calculated, before it is due, before you’ve posted it, ''at all'', let alone with enough certainty for a [[fixed charge]] to attach to it, we can only wonder. | “'''([[present or future]])'''”: Tossed out, no doubt, as a universal redundant catch-all, it doesn’t quite work in a security charging clause. You ''can’t'', actually, grant a [[fixed charge]] over something you haven’t yet delivered into the account you are charging, you can’t identify, and which you aren’t yet — by the very theory of the game — even obliged to deliver into that account. There’s an ontological problem here. It goes deep. For how are you supposed to identify with ''any'' certainty what your [[future]] {{imcsdprov|Posted Credit Support (IM)}} will be, before it has been calculated, before it is due, before you’ve posted it, ''at all'', let alone with enough certainty for a [[fixed charge]] to attach to it, we can only wonder. | ||
And is the assignment of these rights really absolute, or [[by way of security]]? | And is the [[assignment]] of these rights really absolute, or [[assignment by way of security|by way of security]]? |