We have had a very brief insight into Da Finks deliberations
The collateral and bargain for the Lender(client)is not spelt out etc
Try this Because the amsla is only half the contract..The client and Opes discussed and negotiated their bargain separately
In the Ants case ..we asked for a Margin loan in writing asked for a lvr on some shares Opes came back with an offer of lvr and interest rate..our intermediary ..jokingly called them robbers we accepted the offer..and filed in the forms..to transfer shares to ANZ
We argue both of our bargains ..request /negotiation/conclusion..should be read at the same time as the amsla Not the amsla in isolation
Then things make more sense..
Where does ANZ fit in..ANZ knew Opes business model and knew Opes was retailing Margin loans
And were the recipiant of 1200 peoples shares
The intention of the 1200 was certainly not to loan shares to opes..thats just a nonsense or as Bryan Frith has observed a legal fiction
