Template:M summ 2002 ISDA rate of exchange: Difference between revisions

You could scarcely ask for better example of an unnecessary [[definition]]. In the'r hearts, you sense {{icds}} knew this, for they couldn’t find it in themselves to even capitalise it. In the {{1992ma}}, it didn’t even make the {{isdaprov|Definitions}} section, but was half-heartedly tacked onto the end of the {{isdaprov|Contractual Currency}} section — it made it into the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Definitions}} Section only because it also wangled its way into a new {{isdaprov|Set-off}} clause at Section {{isdaprov|6(f)}}.  

But if the two guiding principles are don’t create definitions you only use once or twice, and don’t define things whose ordinary meaning is patently obvious, then {{isdaprov|rate of exchange}} comprehensively fails the main criteria for needing a definition. The [[JC]]’s general view is, all other things being equal, to ease comprehension, ''eschew'' [[definitions]].  

And also, could they not have used “exchange rate”, instead of {{isdaprov|rate of exchange}}?