On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> 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.
Okay, that's fair. I thought it was obvious, but it's obviously un-obvious.
> 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.
Okay.
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
