No event of default or potential event of default: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{repanat|No default or potential event of default}}
{{repanat|No default or potential event of default}}
Can you understand the rationale for this representation: Sure. Does it make any practical sense? It does not. A [[No event of default or potential event of default - Representation|No EOD rep]] is a classic [[loo paper rep]]: soft, durable, comfy, absorbent — super cute when a wee Labrador pub grabs one end of the streamer and charges round your Italian sunken garden with it — but as a [[credit mitigant]] or a genuine contractual protection, only good for wiping your behind on.
Can you understand the rationale for this representation? Sure.  
 
Does it do any practical good? No.  
 
A [[No event of default or potential event of default - Representation|No EOD rep]] is a classic [[loo paper rep]]: soft, durable, comfy, absorbent — super cute when a wee Labrador pub grabs one end of the streamer and charges round your Italian sunken garden with it — but as a [[credit mitigant]] or a genuine contractual protection, only good for wiping your behind on.


Bear in mind you are asking someone — on pain of them being found in [[Fundamental breach|fundamental breach of contract]] — to swear to you they are not already in [[fundamental breach]] of {{t|contract}}. Now, how much comfort can you genuinely draw from such promise? Wouldn't it be better if your [[credit]] team did some cursory [[due diligence]] to establish, independently of the say-so of the prisoner in question, whether there are grounds to suppose it might be in [[fundamental breach]] of {{t|contract}}?  
Bear in mind you are asking someone — on pain of them being found in [[Fundamental breach|fundamental breach of contract]] — to swear to you they are not already in [[fundamental breach]] of {{t|contract}}. Now, how much comfort can you genuinely draw from such promise? Wouldn't it be better if your [[credit]] team did some cursory [[due diligence]] to establish, independently of the say-so of the prisoner in question, whether there are grounds to suppose it might be in [[fundamental breach]] of {{t|contract}}?  

Navigation menu