On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> It's not R1728 intent unless you specify the "method and value for N" >> for each method. If you do state Method and N, however, you've begun a >> legal process called a "dependent action". You've become an initiator. >> It is a multipart action, but starting the process and taking that >> legal role can be said to be part of attempting to complete it. > > I disagree. R1728 says: > > a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > method(s) (including the value of N for each method) > > I read this as two separate requirements: (i) that e announce intent > (where "intent" has not been defined and thus has its natural-language > meaning), and (ii) that e specify the action and method(s). > > ... Unless, of course, "intent" has an technical legal-jargon meaning?
I take it as a single requirement. Taking it as two requirements is like saying "I transfer 2 pennies" is two requirements (one to specify 2 and one to specify pennies). It doesn't seem like a natural reading to me at all. And yes intent has a lot of legal meaning; e.g. to prove willful intent etc. But in this case I'm saying that the rules-defined "announcement of intent" in R1728 has a clear definition of being a message containing the correct information (N, method, etc.) and this overrides the common or legal definition of intent (R754.2). -G.
