On 10/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > > Actually, I'm not even sure if either of the deputisations will work. The > > CotC isn't obligated to assign cases to me (just to someone), and > > deputisation isn't clear on whether I can deputise with an argument (if > > not then I'd consider it broken); > > By "deputise with an argument", do you mean "deputise for a duty that > can be satisfied in multiple ways, stating in advance which way you > intend to choose"? I don't see why this wouldn't work, given that > you can do the same thing without the advance statement.
This reminds me of the precedent set in CFJ 1334, in which it was ruled that a dependent action failed because the announcement of intent was insufficiently specific. However, that determination hinged around the phrase "unambiguously describe", which is not used for deputisation. -root
