Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 12: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The major change between the versions was the {{2002ma}}’s express inclusion of e-mail in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the {{1992ma}}’s electronic mess...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The major change between the versions was the {{2002ma}}’s express inclusion of [[e-mail]] in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the {{1992ma}}’s [[electronic messaging system]]. This well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even ''modern'' — change persuaded the Chancery Division of the High Court to conclude that electronic messaging system and email are mutually exclusive things, a conclusion which the [[JC]] finds hard to accept, as you will see if you read the {{casenote| | The major change between the versions was the {{2002ma}}’s express inclusion of [[e-mail]] in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the {{1992ma}}’s [[electronic messaging system]]. This well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even ''modern'' — change persuaded the Chancery Division of the High Court to conclude that electronic messaging system and email are mutually exclusive things, a conclusion which the [[JC]] finds hard to accept, as you will see if you read the {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} case note. | ||
Revision as of 14:09, 26 February 2020
The major change between the versions was the 2002 ISDA’s express inclusion of e-mail in addition to, and not as a replacement for, the 1992 ISDA’s electronic messaging system. This well-intended and, we think, presumed harmless — even modern — change persuaded the Chancery Division of the High Court to conclude that electronic messaging system and email are mutually exclusive things, a conclusion which the JC finds hard to accept, as you will see if you read the Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc case note.