2009/3/18 Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk>: > As for the question the CFJ was trying to ask; either a right-side up or > upside-down moo would have been appropriate to fulfil the obligation, > due to rule 754(1) (they are clearly synonyms in this context).
So you're judging that you can agree to an upside-down contract, and the obligations apply as if they were the right way up? Interesting. Others: thoughts?
