Kerim Aydin wrote: > This favors the > spirit and some precedents but very much ignores the language.
Which of course would flagrantly violate R217s1, though as ais523 points out IMPOSSIBLE and/or ILLEGAL things do occasionally ratify for the sake of convenience. It would be nice not to rely on that for the regular functioning of the rule though. > - If you take a legal/decision standpoint (where legally a decision > must be made based on uncertain data - see particularly natural > resource management for situations like this - a court CAN > determine a likely outcome and make it the legal reality; for > example by the court making a fair choice itself or delegating to > the recordkeepor. This sounds very promising. I had assumed (after failing to find the term "random" in a few online law dictionaries) that there was no legal definition of the term. But if a non-catastrophic legal definition of random exists, then R217s2 allows us to choose it over the catastrophic mathematical definition, since R754(3) gives equal weight to each.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
