|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ''There is no strict equivalent to Section {{isdaprov|9(h)}} in the {{1992ma}}. But see Section {{isda92prov|2(e)}}, which is a half-arsed attempt at the same thing. <br>
| | {{isda 9(h) comp|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| Friends of the [[JC]] will know that “half-arsed” isn’t always ''bad'', of course — it can be quite ''good'', in fact, characterising as it does the sum total of the [[JC]]’s paltry achievements on this barren rock — and in any case it leaves something to the ''imagination'' and we all like a little private intellectual space to indulge our whims and fantasies every now and then, don’t we?
| |
| | |
| Besides, as you may come to see as you step through this monstrosity, going to town on devilish details leads you directly into the “{{isia}}” file.
| |
| | |
| Are you sorry yet? Well, you ''did'' ask.
| |
| | |
| {{ISDA 2002 Section 9 TOC}}
| |