Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> As noted by the appellant, clause 6 of the PNP contract is sufficient to
>> rebut the judge's arguments.
>
> How so? What rule did the PNP violate?
Probably none, but it came close enough to violating R2215 that the
core of your argument ("the PNP contract itself provides no restriction
or obligation on comex to do/not do this kind of thing") - at best -
needs clarification ("given that comex didn't intend to cause the PNP to
mislead") in order to be true.
Also, R2169 explicitly doesn't restrict itself to a party actually
violating an obligation. Granted, it neither explicitly includes this
type of situation, nor explicitly defines "reasonably equitable
resolution", but IMO a null judgement in this type of situation requires
more justification than what's been given so far.
