|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|2002|9(a)|Section|9(a)|medium}} | | {{manual|MI|2002|9(a)|Section|9(a)|short}} |
| What you see is what you get, folks: if it ain’t written down in the {{isdama}}, it don’t count, so no sneaky oral representations. But, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'', as we {{tag|Latin}} freaks say: good luck in enforcing that if your counterparty is a [[little old lady]].
| |
| | |
| Note also that liability for a ''fraudulent'' warranty or misrepresentation won’t be excluded. So if your oral representation or warranty is a bare-faced lie, the innocent party can maybe still rely on it in entering the agreement, even if it isn’t written down.
| |
| | |
| Good luck parsing the universe of possible scenarios to figure out when ''that'' qualification might bite.
| |
| | |
| Smart-arse point: A [[warranty]] is a contractual assurance, made as part of a concluded contract, and cannot, logically, be relied on by the other party when entering into the contract. An assurance on which one relies when deciding to enter into a {{t|contract}} is a [[representation]].
| |
| | |
| ==={{isdaprov|Confirmation}}s===
| |
| The [[entire agreement]] clause is legal boilerplate to nix any unwanted application of the [[parol evidence]] rule. Which might be a problem because the time-honoured understanding between all right-thinking derivatives trading folk is that the oral agreement, and not the subsequent confirmation, is the binding legal agreement. Hasten to Section {{isdaprov|9(e)(ii)}} — the {{isdaprov|Confirmation}} is only ''evidence'' of the binding agreement. Could that be it?
| |
| | |
| | |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *[[Little old ladies]]
| |
| *[[Representations and warranties]]
| |
| | |
| {{ISDA 2002 Section 9 TOC}}
| |