Examples of using Paper-based transferable in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Draft article**.[Operative electronic record] Paper-based transferable document or instrument.
Draft article 10.[Paper-based transferable document or instrument][Operative electronic record] Electronic transferable record.
Endorsement It was recalled that endorsement was one of the two elements for transferring paper-based transferable documents or instruments, the other being delivery.
It was further explained that in certain cases, a paper-based transferable document or instrument satisfied multiple functions, some of which did not rely on transferability of the document or instrument.
While there was support for this approach,it was noted that such a definition would not clearly identify the functions of a paper-based transferable document or instrument.
Another suggestion was to include a list of paper-based transferable documents or instruments to be covered.
In such cases,it was suggested that different requirements would apply to achieve equivalence with the various functions of a paper-based transferable document or instrument.
It was stressed that electronic and paper-based transferable documents should give the same level of protection to third parties.
It was explained that the concept of de facto power would cover instances similar to a thief's possession of a paper-based transferable document or instrument.
It was replied that all options available for paper-based transferable documents should also be applicable to electronic transferable records.
In light of such variety in meanings,it was stressed that a careful analysis of all the functions fulfilled by presentation of a paper-based transferable document or instrument was necessary.
It was generally agreed that there was a need to align the definitions of"paper-based transferable document or instrument" and"electronic transferable record" by including both the"transferability" and the"entitlement" aspects.
It was said that the term"financial instrument" contained in paragraph 2 was too broad as it could encompass certain types of paper-based transferable document or instrument.
It was suggested that inclusion of that word would establish a link between a paper-based transferable document or instrument and an electronic transferable record that performed the same functions.
It was explained that transfer of control over an electronic transferable record should have the same effect as delivery and, when required,endorsement of a paper-based transferable document.
In other words, as long as those instruments performed the same orsimilar functions as a paper-based transferable document or instrument, they should be included in the scope of the draft provisions.
After discussion, it was generally agreed that the Working Group should focus on enabling the use of electronic transferable records as equivalents of existing paper-based transferable documents.
It was suggested that certain information required for the issuance of a paper-based transferable document or instrument might not necessarily be relevant for an electronic transferable record.
In that respect, it was clarified that those general principles referred to the law governing electronic communications, andnot to the law governing paper-based transferable documents or instruments.
It was indicated that,while business practices existed where multiple originals of paper-based transferable documents or instruments were issued, no case could be identified where the law required it.
After discussion, the Working Group agreed to proceed with the preparation of functional equivalence rules for the use of electronic transferable records corresponding to a paper-based transferable document or instrument.
Thus, the Working Group engaged in a preliminary discussion about the definition of the terms"paper-based transferable document or instrument" and"electronic transferable record" as provided in draft article 3.
It was also suggested that draft articles 25, 26 and27 should be formulated into a functional equivalence rule with the chapeau revised along the following lines:"where any rule of law governing a paper-based transferable document or instrument permits.
The Working Group agreed that the draft Model Law should provide for both electronic equivalents of paper-based transferable documents or instruments and for transferable records that existed only in an electronic environment.
However, it was stated that notice requirements did not necessarily exist in the paper-based environment andthat it would be more appropriate to maintain the same notice requirements for electronic transferable records as set for paper-based transferable documents.
It was suggested that that provision should offer a functional equivalence rule for the use of paper-based transferable documents or instruments by setting forth the requirements to be met by the use of an electronic record.
While it was agreed that other definitions contained in draft article 3 should be examined in the context of the respective relevant draft article,the Working Group had a discussion about the definitions of"electronic transferable record" and"paper-based transferable document or instrument.
It was also agreed that the definition of"paper-based transferable document or instrument" could include an indicative list of examples, while whether those examples would be retained in the definition or in the commentary would be discussed at a later stage.
After discussion, it was agreed that a general rule should be prepared to addressthe need to replicate, in a functionally equivalent manner, the circumstances whereby a paper-based transferable document would cease to have any legal effect.
Where the law requires the use of a paper-based transferable document or instrument or provides consequences for its absence, that requirement is met by the use of an electronic record if a method is employed.