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

← Older edit

Template:Isda 9(b) summ (view source)

Revision as of 11:38, 23 December 2023

1,029 bytes removed , 23 December 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{icds}} takes a clause which didn’t really need to be said, and converts it into a monster. If we convert this to symbolic logic it must mean this:
-'''''Effective amendment or waiver {{font colour|green|<nowiki>=</nowiki>}}[[In writing]] {{font colour|red|AND}} {{font colour|green|[}}{{font colour|red|EITHER}} executed by each party {{font colour|red|OR}} confirmed by exchange of {{font colour|green|[}}{{font colour|red|EITHER}} [[Telex]] {{font colour|red|OR}} [[electronic message]]{{font colour|green|]]}}'''''
+{{quote|
+'''''Effective amendment or waiver {{font colour|green|<nowiki>=</nowiki>}}[[In writing]] {{font colour|red|AND}} {{font colour|green|[}}{{font colour|red|EITHER}} executed by each party {{font colour|red|OR}} confirmed by exchange of {{font colour|green|[}}{{font colour|red|EITHER}} [[Telex]] {{font colour|red|OR}} [[electronic message]]{{font colour|green|]]}}'''''}}
 {{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, or re-transmit it over a [[telex]]?
-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.
-{{no oral modification capsule}}