> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: >> I still don't think I'm incorrect. Giving notice that I plan to do >> something via means X is still giving notice that I plan to do it; it's >> a logical implication. See also CFJ 2624, which also found that an >> intent to do something via an incorrect means was still an intent.
Actually let me leave this with a "legal" example using common definitions: Contract: The City of Buffalo hereby agrees that, provided G. gives 24 hours or more notice of eir arrival, e shall be met with a brass band. G. message to Buffalo: I intend to arrive seven days from now, by train. G. (25 hours later): I've just arrived on a bus and there's no band; Buffalo is in breach of contract. Judge: G., by specifying a misleading time and method of arrival, did not in fact give the required notice. The contract clearly does not require Buffalo to monitor all ports of entry 24/7 to guard against the possibility that a misleading notice was received. -G.
