On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There may still be some gray area, but this recent sequence of events is > not it. In particular, in the following hypothetical cases, I think > EXCUSED would be appropriate: > > 1) I join Contracts X and Y, which initially do not conflict. > > 2) Y is amended with majority support so that it comes into conflict > with X. > > a) The amendment occurs so quickly that I don't have a reasonable > opportunity to leave. Generally, 7 days (ASAP) or even 4 days > (objection) are reasonable, but 1 hour is not (CFJs 1792-93). > > b) Before the amendment takes effect, I claim to leave; after it > takes effect, the clause intended to allow it is discovered to > have been broken.
I don't think either of these are grounds for EXCUSED. a) should be amply covered by R101(v). The moral behind b) is that you shouldn't agree to a broken contract. -root
