Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 12: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
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|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} case note. | 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. | ||
Note the restriction on forms of notice for closing out: No [[email]], no [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messages]]. But note ''another'' dissonance: in the {{1992ma}}, close-out notification by [[fax]] was expressly forbidden; in the 2002, it is not: only [[Electronic messaging system - ISDA Provision|electronic messaging systems]] and [[e-mail]] are ''verboten''. Ironic, seeing how faxes have got on as a fashionable means of communication. | |||
Revision as of 16:05, 13 March 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.
Note the restriction on forms of notice for closing out: No email, no electronic messages. But note another dissonance: in the 1992 ISDA, close-out notification by fax was expressly forbidden; in the 2002, it is not: only electronic messaging systems and e-mail are verboten. Ironic, seeing how faxes have got on as a fashionable means of communication.