On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:33 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote: > 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?
I'm judging that the upside-down contract worked only because upside-down messages are in general (unless ambiguous) equivalent to right-way-up ones. After all, if you can call for judgement upside-down, you can fulfil an obligation to publish something upside-down (unless that would be ambiguous). -- ais523
