83,057
edits
Template:Isda 9(b) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{in writing capsule}} | {{in writing capsule}} | ||
So WHAT THE HELL IS “INCLUDING A WRITING EVIDENCED BY A FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION” MEANT TO ADD? What even is “a” writing? But, readers, this brief sentence gets only worse. ''Then'' it says “'''AND''' executed by each of the parties” — so what, are you saying you have to get them to sign your fax copy? | So WHAT THE HELL IS “INCLUDING A WRITING EVIDENCED BY A FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION” MEANT TO ADD? What even is “a” writing? But, readers, this brief sentence gets only worse. ''Then'' it says “'''AND''' executed by each of the parties” — so what, are you saying you have to get them to sign your fax copy, or re-transmit it over a [[telex]]? | ||
And note, | And note, ''[[email]] does not count as an [[electronic messaging system]]''. I know it seems odd, but that is the unambiguous text in the definition of “[[electronic messaging system]]”. So a waiver of a [[NAV trigger|NAV Trigger]] by email, even by an exchange of emails, are not strictly enforceable. Though of course waivers unsupported by consideration are generally revocable on fair notice under English law anyway. | ||
As a result {{icds}} can pat itself on the back for having inserted as long ago as 1992 what, at the time, was an unnecessary clause but which turned out to anticipate a rather woeful decision of the Supreme Court in 2018. | As a result {{icds}} can pat itself on the back for having inserted as long ago as 1992 what, at the time, was an unnecessary clause but which turned out to anticipate a rather woeful decision of the Supreme Court in 2018. | ||
{{no oral modification capsule}} | {{no oral modification capsule}} | ||