Template:Isda 9(a) summ: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:


The [[entire agreement]] clause is legal boilerplate to nix any unwanted application of the [[parol evidence]] rule — to make sure one only cares for the four corners of the written agreement, and no extra-documentational squirrelling is allowed. Which might be a problem because the time-honoured understanding between all right-thinking derivatives trading folk is that the [[oral agreement]], between the traders is the binding legal agreement, and not the subsequent confirmation, hammered out between middle office and operations folk after the trade is done. Hasten to Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(ii)}} — the {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}} is only ''evidence'' of the binding agreement. Could that be it?
The [[entire agreement]] clause is legal boilerplate to nix any unwanted application of the [[parol evidence]] rule — to make sure one only cares for the four corners of the written agreement, and no extra-documentational squirrelling is allowed. Which might be a problem because the time-honoured understanding between all right-thinking derivatives trading folk is that the [[oral agreement]], between the traders is the binding legal agreement, and not the subsequent confirmation, hammered out between middle office and operations folk after the trade is done. Hasten to Section {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(ii)}} — the {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}} is only ''evidence'' of the binding agreement. Could that be it?
===[[Entire agreement]] bunk===
Section 9(a) isn’t ''quite'' as ludicrous as the {{gmslaprov|Entire Agreement}} clause in the {{gmsla}},<ref>Students of the absurd may enjoy our essay on that topic, [[27.1 - GMSLA Provision|here]].</ref> in that {{icds}} craftily included all {{isdaprov|Confirmation}}s in the definition of “{{isdaprov|Agreement}}” in Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}}, but it is still ''mostly'' bunk, seeing as (as per the above) the {{isdaprov|Confirmation}} isn’t the canonical binding {{isdaprov|Transaction}} anyway, and besides an “{{isdaprov|Entire Agreement}}” that you freely concede the parties could be orally augmenting or Confirming several times a day for the hereafter really isn’t a fabulously stout hook to hang your hat on should you wish to make a point out of it in forthcoming litigation. Actually, what ''would'' be the point you would wish to make about an [[entire agreement]] in litigation? {{postcard}}