Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 12: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(Replaced content with "{{isda 12 comp|isdaprov}}")
Tag: Replaced
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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.
{{isda 12 comp|isdaprov}}
 
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.

Latest revision as of 12:23, 5 January 2024

The major change between the versions of Section 12 (Notices) was the 2002 ISDA’s inclusion of e-mail as a means of communication in addition to the 1992 ISDA’s electronic messaging system. Also, fax and electronic messaging system are not permitted means of serving close-out communications (i.e., under Sections 5 and 6) under the 1992 ISDA, but fax is permitted under the 2002 ISDA, whereas electronic messaging system and email are not. Got all that?

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_comp_disc_2002_ISDA_12&oldid=82307"