On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Um, "CAN and SHOULD" != "MUST"...? -Goethe > > Well, that's the point. I contend that doesn't matter, that "a state > of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned by the > contract" can follow from violating a SHOULD.
But it's not a violation. As evidenced by the fact that you called the CFJ on the matter, you've "understood and carefully weighed ... the full implications of failing to perform" and so performed according to the contract. -G.
