On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked > reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I > think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably the best argument as to what > is allowed, because it sets it out explicitly: (1) typos, dialects, and > abbreviations that do not cause ambiguity; (2) Rule-defined terms; (3) > mathematical and legal terms; (4) standard English. Note, specifically, > that this does not include contracts.
To be more precise, (4) allows "ordinary-language meaning". Arguably, general acceptance of a contract-defined term makes it ordinary language. That's probably not the case here, though, since "SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 3" doesn't seem to be as generally accepted as we thought. -root
