Examples of using Transferable document 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.
Paragraph 1(a) states that the electronic record should contain the information required to be in a transferable document or instrument.
However, information contained in a transferable document or instrument may have legal value for purposes unrelated to the functions pursued with transferability.
The Working Group engaged in a discussion on the extent to which the issuer should remain involved in the transfer ornegotiation of an electronic transferable document.
However, article 17 does not require that all information contained in a transferable document or instrument should be contained in the replacing electronic transferable record.
Nevertheless, one electronic transferable record may contain information that would be required to be contained in more than one type of transferable document or instrument.
Since information in a transferable document or instrument is in writing, its inclusion in an electronic transferable record must comply with article 8 of the Model Law.
Nothing in this Law affects the application to electronic transferable records of rules of private international law governing a transferable document or instrument.
Substantive law determines the information necessary to be contained in the replacing transferable document or instrument in order to preserve rights and obligations of all concerned parties.
Nothing in this Law precludes the inclusion of information in an electronic transferable record in addition to that contained in a transferable document or instrument.
Upon issuance of the electronic transferable record in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, the transferable document or instrument shall be made inoperative and ceases to have any effect or validity.
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.
The Working Group then considered the treatment of electronic transferable records that existed only in an electronic environment andhad no corresponding paper-based transferable document or instrument.
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.
Adding to that general rule, article 6 clarifies that theelectronic transferable record may, but does not need to contain information additional to that contained in the transferable document or instrument.
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.
In particular, an electronic transferable record could contain information, for example,metadata that cannot be reproduced in a transferable document or instrument see also above, paras. 56-58.
Hence, the same substantive law applies to a transferable document or instrument and to the electronic transferable record containing the same information as that transferable document or instrument.
It was indicated that the design andoperation of registries would depend on a number of elements including the type of electronic transferable document, the technology adopted for the registry, industry and market demand.
The view was expressed that,similar to a paper-based transferable document or instrument, exclusivity of control over an electronic transferable record would be a logical result achieved through the uniqueness of that record.
It was indicated that, throughout its life cycle,an electronic transferable record might contain information in addition to that contained in a paper-based transferable document or instrument that performed the same functions.
Where the law requires or permits the indication of time orplace with respect to a transferable document or instrument, that requirement is met if a reliable method is used to indicate that time or place with respect to an electronic transferable record.
It was noted that, due to technical reasons, uniqueness in electronic records was not reflected in the existence of a single record butrather of a single claim to the rights incorporated in the electronic transferable document.
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.
However, it was also said that a provision along the lines of paragraph 7 could be particularly useful in case a paper-based transferable document or instrument issued in multiple originals would be replaced with an electronic transferable record.
In the same line, reference was made to article 8(3)of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, 1996("Model Law on Electronic Commerce") as a possible source of inspiration for standards for originality and integrity of the electronic transferable document.
Under article 18, a printout of an electronic transferable record needs to meet the requirements of that article in order tohave effect as a transferable document or instrument replacing the corresponding electronic transferable record.