On Feb 2, 2008 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If none of the clauses have precedence, the status of X may be
> UNDETERMINED (a self-contradictory loop).
This outcome would more properly be UNDECIDABLE.
I think that you also should address comex's claim, i.e. that R1742
defines
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>In the absence of any explicit guidance in the contract, I rely on
>the game custom (and method for Rules) of using numerical precedence
>within the body of the contract, and find that Clause 1 has precedence
>over Clauses 2-3.
I'm dubious about this. No doubt it would be p
On Saturday 02 February 2008 10:33 Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I dunno; maybe in this case, the ordinary-language definition
> supplements the rule's definition, since the rule's definition *does*
> seem to be merely attempting to formalise the ordinary-language
> definition. . .
No. R754(3)-(4) cle
Proto 2, substantially longer, addressing woggle's (and others')
comments. Thoughts?
Arguments:
This "contract" contains TWO blatant self-contradictions.
The FIRST CONTRADICTION is in the first four words:
"1. This contract is non-binding..."
A "non-binding contract" is a contradiction in l
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I don't think relying on an ordinary-language definition of contract is
> warranted because R1742 seems to define it. I think you should also examine
> the possiblity that the X agreement is a contract but is binding (in spite of
> its text).
The rules
On 23:10 Sat 02 Feb , Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Saturday 02 February 2008 22:27:05 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract.
> >
> > Proto-judgement: FALSE. a "non-binding contract" is a contradiction
> > in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct.
On Saturday 02 February 2008 22:27:05 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract.
>
> Proto-judgement: FALSE. a "non-binding contract" is a contradiction
> in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct. R1742, and R2169,
> both explicitly and explicitly link
>comex's non-binding agreement 'X' is a contract.
Proto-judgement: FALSE. a "non-binding contract" is a contradiction
in legal terms, and a meaningless semantic construct. R1742, and R2169,
both explicitly and explicitly link the concept of "contract" with the
concept of it being bindin
8 matches
Mail list logo
