82,891
edits
Template:Isda 9(a) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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 leg...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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]]. | 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]]. | ||
==={{ | ====={{{{{1}}}|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]], 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 {{ | “This {{isdaprov|Agreement}}”, courtesy of how it is defined in Section {{isdaprov|1(c)}}, includes the ISDA Master pre-printed form, {{isdaprov|Schedule}} ''and each {{isdaprov|Confirmation}} entered into under 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? | |||