Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.8(b): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "What to make of that loaded expression commercially reasonable? A good place to look is {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, which considered what a party must do if it is req...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What to make of that loaded expression [[commercially reasonable]]? A good place to look is {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, which considered what a party must do if it is required to act “in a [[commercially reasonable manner]]”. Basically it is sensible and solemn and workable — you are entitled to consider your own book, your own models and your own axes, and can’t be second guessed by some appeal to the [[hypothetical]]. | [[Cancellation Amount - Equity Derivatives Provision|What]] to make of that loaded expression [[commercially reasonable]]? A good place to look is {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, which considered what a party must do if it is required to act “in a [[commercially reasonable manner]]”. Basically it is sensible and solemn and workable — you are entitled to consider your own book, your own models and your own axes, and can’t be second guessed by some appeal to the [[hypothetical]]. | ||
As a corrective to any irrationally giddy feelings of happiness this may induce, see also {{casenote|Crowther|Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd}} — yes, you can legitimately consider your own risk situation, and you are best placed to judge it, but all the same this is not a licence to do what the hell you like. | As a corrective to any irrationally giddy feelings of happiness this may induce, see also {{casenote|Crowther|Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd}} — yes, you can legitimately consider your own risk situation, and you are best placed to judge it, but all the same this is not a licence to do what the hell you like. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:53, 19 October 2020
What to make of that loaded expression commercially reasonable? A good place to look is Barclays v Unicredit, which considered what a party must do if it is required to act “in a commercially reasonable manner”. Basically it is sensible and solemn and workable — you are entitled to consider your own book, your own models and your own axes, and can’t be second guessed by some appeal to the hypothetical.
As a corrective to any irrationally giddy feelings of happiness this may induce, see also Crowther v Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd — yes, you can legitimately consider your own risk situation, and you are best placed to judge it, but all the same this is not a licence to do what the hell you like.
If a discretion is designed for one purpose, you can’t use it, to the exclusion of that purpose, to achieve another.
Wise words.