|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{summ part eua|Settlement Disruption Event}} | | {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption}} and {{euaprov|Suspension}} beg for comparison, so [[Settlement Disruption and Suspension - Emissions Annex Provision|here]] is one: {{compare|65842|65840}} them. See also our laborious, but probably wasted effort, of a table parsing when, and when not, to apply them: |
| | | {{imageflex|name=Disruption Venn|extension=png|47|frame=frameless|align=center|caption=|size=47}} |
| ===For the avoidance of doubt, this is intended to avoid doubt===
| | ===Traumnovelle=== |
| There is a wonderful [[nested uncertainty avoidance device]] buried in the redundant second paragraph, which effectively says, [[for the avoidance of doubt]], this [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoidance of doubt]] paragraph is intended to avoid doubt, and not actually change anything. Here [[Ourobos]] reaches around and eats its own tail: a clause which appears to do something — for why else in a competently-composed passage would it be there? — appears to be there simply to deny its own ''raison d’etre''.
| | {{Emissions force majeure termination summ|euaprov}} |
| | |
| The odd thing is, however that the passage does not ''avoid'' doubt so much as create it, for what ''is''
| |
| :“... the low or non-allocation of {{euaprov|Allowances}} by a {{euaprov|Member State}} or ... the delay or failure of a Member State or Central Administrator to replace Allowances of the {{euaprov|Third Compliance Period}} with {{euaprov|Allowances}} for the {{euaprov|Fourth Compliance Period}}...” | |
| if not “an event or circumstance beyond the control of the party affected that cannot, after the use of [[all reasonable efforts]], be overcome and which makes it impossible for that party to perform its obligations”?
| |
| | |
| Why should that not be a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption}}?
| |
| ===Settlement Disruption and Suspension=== | |
| {{Suspension v Settlement Disruption}}
| |
| | |
| {{M summ EUA Annex (d)(i)(4)(D)}}
| |
| ==={{euaprov|Payment on Termination for Settlement Disruption}}=== | |
| Not for the only time in this Annex, {{icds}} have contemplated an outcome which doesn’t feel enormously derivative ''literate''.
| |
| | |
| If there is a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} — say I have sold you forward some {{euaprov|Allowances}}, but for some external reason beyond my control and personal culpability, when it comes time to deliver them, transiently I cannot — then, for the want of any better idea, the transaction goes into sort of suspended animation. Fair enough: mountain, Mohammed and all that. But my obligations are still there. They are just put on ice. Aren’t they?
| |
| | |
| 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 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?
| |