Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption: Difference between revisions

Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption (view source)

Revision as of 10:09, 21 March 2023

1 byte removed , 21 March 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

Revision as of 16:22, 24 January 2023 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 10:09, 21 March 2023 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 19:		Line 19:
	But once that [[Settlement Disruption Event - Emissions Annex Provision\|disruption]] has lifted, what should we do? We are back at the races. We should, therefore ''carry on'', you would think; perhaps with some allowance for cost of carry. And indeed this is what might happen, ''but only if you elect that {{euaprov\|Payment on Termination for Settlement Disruption}} should apply''. If you don’t, the parties simply walk away — refunding pre-paid forward payments, and hanging on to whatever it is that they sold.		But once that [[Settlement Disruption Event - Emissions Annex Provision\|disruption]] has lifted, what should we do? We are back at the races. We should, therefore ''carry on'', you would think; perhaps with some allowance for cost of carry. And indeed this is what might happen, ''but only if you elect that {{euaprov\|Payment on Termination for Settlement Disruption}} should apply''. If you don’t, the parties simply walk away — refunding pre-paid forward payments, and hanging on to whatever it is that they sold.

	Now folks: on what ''planet'' in the entire ISDA extended fan-fiction ''galaxy'' would anyone ever do that? This might feel like the sort of thing was lost sacred knowledge to the [[Children of the ~~Forest~~]] — a kind of environmentally-friendly reprise to the never-used {{isda92prov\|First Method}} — but come on folks. This is the 2020s. And besides, here the operating theory is the Settlement Disruption Event has ''lifted''. The seller is perfectly able to perform the contract. Why wouldn’t it?		Now folks: on what ''planet'' in the entire ISDA extended fan-fiction ''galaxy'' would anyone ever do that? This might feel like the sort of thing was lost sacred knowledge to the [[Children of the Woods]] — a kind of environmentally-friendly reprise to the never-used {{isda92prov\|First Method}} — but come on folks. This is the 2020s. And besides, here the operating theory is the Settlement Disruption Event has ''lifted''. The seller is perfectly able to perform the contract. Why wouldn’t it?