Amendments - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

To lookouts here. One: according to her majesty’s judiciary, [[email]] ''does not count as an [[electronic messaging system]]''. Let your klaxons blare. It seems absurd at first glance — [[some|Jolly Contrarian]] would say it seems absurd having read the whole judgment in {{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} — but there it is: that is the law of the land at the time of writing.

This might not so much matter were it not for the second point. In another spectacular outing for her majesty's judiciary<ref>{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}}</ref>, they recently found that a “[[no oral modification]]” clause is effective in law. This probably makes sense if you are sitting in a law library, or judicial chambers, contemplating the eternal verities, but it makes none if you are managing the cut and thrust of daily contract management. That said, most financial institutions have an industrial complex covering the negotiation of {{isdama}}s and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass with copperplate script execution. But [[waiver|waivers]] — especially when your [[credit department]] is in the thrall of setting [[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — are a different story.