On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, ais523 wrote: > I mean the first; and "without 3 objections" was one of the options I > gave, so you need to show that there were three objections (in the > contract's warped sense of objection), not just one. Just one of those > loose ends that needs tidying up before we can finally put this case to > rest.
Well, I was initially thinking that in common language sense, the contract indirectly described "without an objection" but not without 3 objections, but you are correct both on this count, and on the fact that I should have taken your whole message of your intent to mousetrap, not just the snippet quoted in the caller's arguments, into consideration. I'll go back and look at your whole "notice" message then either address this point or support your call for appeal. -G.
