82,891
edits
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 12: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "===CSA=== Note that the {{csa}} subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph {{csaprov|9(c)}} and {{csaprov|11(g)}}.") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Note the restriction on forms of notice for closing out: No [[email]], no [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messages]]. But note ''another'' dissonance: in the {{1992ma}}, close-out notification by [[fax]] was expressly forbidden; in the 2002, it is not: only [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messaging systems]] and [[e-mail]] are ''verboten''. Ironic, seeing how [[fax|faxes]] have got on as a fashionable means of communication in the decades since they were sophisticated enough to be a plot McGuffin for a John Grisham novel. | |||
===[[Email]] vs [[electronic messaging system]]=== | |||
The well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even ''modern'' — addition of [[email]] in the {{2000ma}}, ''in addition to'' “[[electronic messaging system]]”, persuaded the [[Chancery Division]] of the High Court to conclude that “[[electronic messaging system]]” and “[[email]]” are mutually exclusive things, rather than a basic commentary on {{icds}} inability to let things go — a conclusion which the [[JC]] finds hard to accept, as you will see if you read the {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} case note. | |||
[[File:Faxpaper.png|250px|thumb|left|A John Grisham McGuffin yesterday. well, in about 1986 actually.]] | |||
===CSA=== | ===CSA=== | ||
Note that the {{csa}} subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph {{csaprov|9(c)}} and {{csaprov|11(g)}}. | Note that the {{csa}} subjects its notice provisions to this provision (see Paragraph {{csaprov|9(c)}} and {{csaprov|11(g)}}. | ||