On Thursday 5 June 2008 8:42:21 Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I submit the following proposal (AI=1.7, II=1), entitled "equation as > amendment": > > In Rule 2169, replace: > An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is > applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The > valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements > that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules. > with: > An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is > applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The > valid judgements for this question are the possible amendments > to the contract. > > and replace: > When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a > judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past > week (or all parties to the contract have approved that > judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement > between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification > or termination by the usual processes governing binding > agreements. > with: > When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a > judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past > week (or all parties to the contract have approved that > judgement), the contract is amended as specified in the judgement. > > > --Wooble >
What if the contract doesn't allow itself to be amended? And, are you super positive that becoming a contest isn't an amendment?
