On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
When e has a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment, it is no longer "an amendment to an agreement which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review". Accordingly, e no longer has the right to not be considered bound by it. This is, obviously, not the only interpretation of the clause, but it's reasonable, as the original purpose of Rule 101 (iv) was (as you know) to protect against a true Mousetrap, where a person is actively bound to a contract the text of which e doesn't know. Under my interpretation this protection would still be effective. (As I ranted in ##nomic, people insist on genericizing the term "mousetrap" to mean any contract someone is bound to against eir will, but the real Mousetrap was quite a bit more than that.)
