7 U.S.C. § 27f — Contract enforcement
submitted 26 years ago by Pub. L. 106-554 to r/title-7-AGRICULTURE · 153 words · no verdicts yet
A hybrid instrument can't be voided or made unenforceable just because it fails the predominance test or an exclusion's conditions. No one can use that failure alone to cancel payments or rescind the contract. This section also overrides certain state anti-gambling laws for hybrid instruments that are mainly banking products.
No hybrid instrument shall be void, voidable, or unenforceable, and no party to a hybrid instrument shall be entitled to rescind, or recover any payment made with respect to, a hybrid instrument under any provision of Federal or State law, based solely on the failure of the hybrid instrument to satisfy the predominance test set forth in section 27c(b) of this title or to comply with the terms or conditions of an exemption or exclusion from any provision of the Commodity* Exchange Act [7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] or any regulation of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission*.
Sections 27 to 27f of this title shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops (other than antifraud provisions of general applicability) in the case of a hybrid instrument that is predominantly a banking product.
Source credit: (Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title IV, § 408], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–461; Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, § 725(g)(1)(C), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1694.)
- 2000Enacted · Pub. L. 106-554 · 114 Stat. 2763, 2763
- 2010Amended · Pub. L. 111-203 · 124 Stat. 1694
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 106-554 on 2000-12-21.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case