Kerim Aydin wrote:
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.
Can you register so I can transfer you a prop for this analogy? :P
-coppro
