David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I repeat: in legal matters, the decisions of the courts, not the
commentators, count, regardless how silly you and isolated
commentators may consider them.
David, that must then be your opinion of:
"[A] condition precedent is a condition precedent to performance
under the contract, not formation of the contract. When a
condition precedent is not satisfied, it relieves a party to the
contract of the obligation to perform. It does not negate the
existence of the contract or the binding contractual relationship
of the parties."; Moratzka v. United States (In re Matthieson),
63 B.R. 56, 60 (D.Minn.1986)
I'm so glad you've finally come around to Alexander's point of view!
Sincerely,
Rjack
-- It's never to late for redemption. --
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
