|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Who would have thought a {{isdaprov|Notices}} provision would be so controversial? Especially the question, “what is an [[electronic messaging system]]”?
| | {{isda 12 summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| ''No-one'', it is humbly submitted, until Andrews, J. of the [[Chancery Division]], was invited to opine on {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, the kind of “[[little old lady]]” case that makes bad law.<ref>As the [[JC]] always says, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''.</ref> The learned judge does nothing to dispel the assumption that lawyers are technological Luddites who would apply Tip-Ex to their VDUs if they didn't have someone to do their typing for them (and if they knew what a VDU was).
| |
| | |
| For there it was held that ''[[email]] is not an “[[electronic messaging system]]”'' and, as such, was an invalid means for serving a [[close-out]] notice under the {{1992ma}}, which doesn’t mention [[email]].
| |
| | |
| While we’re on the subject, who seriously has a [[telex]] in this day and age?
| |
| | |
| Read in depth about that case '''[[Greenclose|here]]'''.
| |