Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Does this matter? Yes. A later part of R2141 reads: > For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments, > the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all > substantive aspects of the rule. > Therefore, the contract is "acting like" a rule about which we don't > know a substantive aspect; it is *not sufficient* to say we know the > aspect is between 1-4 to say that we know this substantive aspect. > > Why does this matter? It matters in R105: > Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes > that change to be void and without effect. > > This judge finds, <CONTROVERSIAL BIT> that fundamental ambiguity about > such a critical substantive aspect of the agent specificying the rule > change, when that substantive aspect of the specifying instrument > controls a substantial aspect of how the new rule may be set and how the > rule change process functions, constitutes "ambiguity in the > specification of the rule change" </CONTROVERSIAL BIT>. > > So it doesn't matter that we know the hypothetical rule specifying the > change has a power between 1-4, we retain ambiguity in a substantive > aspect of the specification (and one clearly more substantial with > respect to a rule change than, say, the title of the hypothetical rule, > as Power is an important consideration in R105).
I fail to see how an ambiguous Power in the enacting instrument makes the Rule Change itself ambiguous. Whatever its Power would be, it is rather irrelevant since it is sufficient to create a Power-1 instrument. -coppro
