82,891
edits
Notices - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Replaced content with "{{isdasnap|12}} ====Commentary==== Note that the {{csa}} subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph {{csaprov|9(c)}} and {{csaprov|11(g)}}. {{isdaan...") |
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). | |||
For there it was held that "[[email]]" is not an "[[electronic messaging system]]" and as such was an invalid means for serving a notice under the {{1992ma}}. | |||
{{isdasnap|12}} | {{isdasnap|12}} | ||
====Commentary==== | ====Commentary==== | ||