On Saturday 02 February 2008 10:33 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I dunno; maybe in this case, the ordinary-language definition
> supplements the rule's definition, since the rule's definition *does*
> seem to be merely attempting to formalise the ordinary-language
> definition. . .
No. R754(3)-(4) clearly state that legal and ordinary-language terms *only*
come into effect when unaddressed -- not just only partially addressed -- by
typo correction and rule definition. To deal with ambiguity in the wording of
the rules, we have to refer to R217, which provides a rather different
mechanism, one completely unrelated to extra-Agoran meanings.
Ordinary-language and legal definitions of "contract" have no relevance
whatsoever here.
watcher
--
But you won't have every kid in America reading your book.
They will look at it, and they will see straight through it,
with their clear, cold, beady little eyes,
and they will put it down, and they will go away."
Ursula K. Le Guin
