82,387
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 8: | Line 8: | ||
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 internment at the ''Faculté de droit de Paris''. 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. | 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 internment at the ''Faculté de droit de Paris''. 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 [[Common law|Anglo Saxon jurisprudence]] that has deluged the continent for its cross-border business. For such a fellow, that the commercial affairs between a Belgian and an Italian should be adjudicated before the courts of England and Wales is a festering point. 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. And be assured that | And, make no mistake, there is a strain of [[continental lawyer]] who quietly resents the tidal-wave of [[Common law|Anglo Saxon jurisprudence]] that has deluged the continent for its cross-border business. For such a fellow, that the commercial affairs between a Belgian and an Italian should be adjudicated before the courts of England and Wales is a festering point. 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. And be assured that ''resentiment'' runs ''deep''. For, when you think even this spiteful Herr must surely have had enough, as you leaf past page 93, hoping for light at the end of the tunnel represented by the first of, undoubtedly, 17 annexes, but and find only whole new section about the specific rules around protection of insurance claims under the ''Insurance Sector Act'' you will beat your fists on the ground and say WHY ARE YOU EXPOSTULATING ON THE TOPIC OF FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE I SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. But box on you must, and you know that ''Advocat á la Cour'', in his pork pie hat, will be enjoying a sweet pastry and schnapps with his Belgian Dentist friend, and they will be thinking of your toil and torment, and ''enjoying every minute of it''. | ||
Because God — manifesting {{sex|Herself}} in the shape of the [[Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices]], has played 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. | |||
===[[Red Flag Act]]=== | ===[[Red Flag Act]]=== | ||