On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Note that I did not have a reasonable chance to review the first >> change that ehird and Wooble made to the Protection Racket (the change >> that removed my ability to leave the contract and permitted them to >> change it at will - it all happened while I was asleep). I don't know >> how this effects the judgment. I did have a reasonable chance to >> review the later changes.
I would say this is perfect grounds for throwing the change out. > R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you > did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows > you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a > reasonable opportunity. Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? It's absolute. It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. Now whether that means the change isn't binding to anyone, whether it means e isn't bound by the contract at all afterwards, or whether e is now the only member of the previous contract and the others who did review it are members of another contract, that's a darn good question... it could use legislative clarification, but I'm guessing the "good of the game" argument would make the change ineffective for everyone. -Goethe
