82,446
edits
Netting opinion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:“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> | ||
Continental lawyers will immediately recognise this terminology. They will tell you it stems from the [[Civil law|Roman tradition]], or some codex developed by a monk while Hannibal’s elephants trekked through the Dolomites, or something like that. | Continental lawyers will immediately recognise this terminology. They will tell you it stems from the [[Civil law|Roman tradition]], or some codex developed by a monk while Hannibal’s elephants trekked through the Dolomites, or something like that. Now we all have our legal folklore, and this is theirs: they learned it during their decades-long legal education. It is their [[Donoghue v Stevenson - Case Note|snail in a gingerbeer]]; their [[Fardell v Potts - Case Note|negligent navigation of a flooded roadway by punt]]; their liability for a [[Ferae naturae|naturally ferocious domestic beast]] which escapes down your mineshaft. | ||
And, make no mistake, there is a strain of [[continental lawyer]] who quietly resents the tidal-wave of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that has deluged the continent. That all the commercial affairs between a Belgian and an Italian should be adjudicated before the courts of England and Wales. And he is just the sort to make his living — and extract his revenge on the [[Common law|common law tradition]] —writing [[netting opinion]]s. | |||
But God — manifesting {{sex|Herself}} in the shape of the [[Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices]], plays a cruel cosmic joke on all [[inhouse lawyer]]s. By ''diktat'' of the latest [[Basel Accord]]) they must diligently read and draw reasoned conclusions from these God-forsaken tomes, so that their firm's financial controllers can recognise balance sheet reductions as a result. | But God — manifesting {{sex|Herself}} in the shape of the [[Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices]], plays a cruel cosmic joke on all [[inhouse lawyer]]s. By ''diktat'' of the latest [[Basel Accord]]) they must diligently read and draw reasoned conclusions from these God-forsaken tomes, so that their firm's financial controllers can recognise balance sheet reductions as a result. | ||