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: | ||
And so, the netting opinion will say what you know to be true, at gruesome length, clothed in ambiguity and decorated with its own peculiar vocabulary. The following confection, uttered in any other context, would invite a bunch of fives, but it will go unchallenged in a netting opinion: | And so, the netting opinion will say what you know to be true, at gruesome length, clothed in ambiguity and decorated with its own peculiar vocabulary. The following confection, uttered in any other context, would invite a bunch of fives, but it will go unchallenged in a netting opinion: | ||
:“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 contracts involve binding [[mutual obligations]] — in other words, | :“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 contracts involve binding [[mutual obligations]] — in other words, they are {{t|contract}}s — and [[consideration]] — in other words, they are [[contract|contracts]], and those mutual obligations are referable to unpredictable (“[[aleatory]]”) events beyond the control of the parties: that is, they are “''[[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. 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. | ||