On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, comex wrote: >> If they're as limited as you claim, then they're very nearly useless. >> What's the point of establishing a SHALL in an equation where the >> original contract most likely already has one? > > To facilitate the establishment of a replacement agreement that all > parties are satisfied with. If the parties cannot make such an > agreement, criminal cases are available to punish the guilty with more > "brute force".
Why don't you try reading something on the concept of equity? What you're talking about is binding arbitration, which is not what this is. For example, do you think that (in RL equity court) the plaintiff and defendant are always both satisfied with the outcome? Strangely enough, I think I've heard people use the term "win" according to who came out better from a case. There's absolutely nothing in R2169 to base your contention on, other than the fact that *if* some kind of "settle out of court" solution can be come to, the process can be ended early. -Goethe
