Netting opinion: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
[[Netting opinion]]s tend to be long, academic, laden with hypotheticals, appealing to [[Latin]]ate principles of civil law and demanding of unusually skilled powers of comprehension and patience  — they are required by regulation to be, in fact — but when it comes down to it, they all say the same thing: that close-out {{tag|netting}} is, ultimately, enforceable: because a [[netting opinion]] would have no reason to exist if it said anything else.  
[[Netting opinion]]s tend to be long, academic, laden with hypotheticals, appealing to [[Latin]]ate principles of civil law and demanding of unusually skilled powers of comprehension and patience  — they are required by regulation to be, in fact — but when it comes down to it, they all say the same thing: that close-out {{tag|netting}} is, ultimately, enforceable: because a [[netting opinion]] would have no reason to exist if it said anything else.  


It will be a rare day when one encounters this thought in any other context:
and so, the netting opinion will say it, at gruesome length, using its own ungainly vocabulary. For example, to utter this following confection in any other context would be to invite a bunch of fives:
:“According to legal literature, [[forward contract|forward contracts]] (''marchés a terme'') are [[synallagmatic]] (that is, the parties enter into mutual commitments, each binding itself to the other) and onerous contracts (that is, one party gives or promises something as a [[consideration]] for the commitment of the other party) and contain an [[aleatory]] element (''contrat aléatoire'').”<ref>What this seems to be saying is these arrangements involve [[mutual obligations]] and [[consideration]] — in other words, they are “legal [[contract|contracts]]”, and the parties address themselves to a chance (“[[aleatory]]”) element outside their mutual control: that is, they’re “''[[derivative]] [[contract]]s''”.</ref>
:“According to legal literature, [[forward contract|forward contracts]] (''marchés a terme'') are [[synallagmatic]] (that is, the parties enter into mutual commitments, each binding itself to the other) and onerous contracts (that is, one party gives or promises something as a [[consideration]] for the commitment of the other party) and contain an [[aleatory]] element (''contrat aléatoire'').”<ref>What this seems to be saying is these arrangements involve [[mutual obligations]] and [[consideration]] — in other words, they are “legal [[contract|contracts]]”, and the parties address themselves to a chance (“[[aleatory]]”) element outside their mutual control: that is, they’re “''[[derivative]] [[contract]]s''”.</ref>


Navigation menu