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

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 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===
====={{{{{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 {{{{{1}}}|9(e)(ii)}} — the {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}} is only ''evidence'' of the binding agreement. Could that be it?
“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.''  


===[[Entire agreement]] bunk===
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?
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}}

Latest revision as of 11:37, 23 December 2023

What you see is what you get, folks: if it ain’t written down in the ISDA Master Agreement, it don’t count, so no sneaky oral representations. But, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt, as we 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, though 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 contract is a representation.

{{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}}s

“This Agreement”, courtesy of how it is defined in Section 1(c), includes the ISDA Master pre-printed form, Schedule and each 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?

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Isda_9(a)_summ&oldid=81122"