On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 20:55 -0700, 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.
Hmm... I think the time and method here are fundamentally different. Take the example of G. stating that e intends to arrive 7 days from then, by train; and instead arrives 7 days later by bus. In this case, the expected behaviour of Buffalo (getting a brass band ready for 7 days later) is the same; the brass band may well turn up at the wrong place within the town without breaching the contract, but it would be violating the contract to not prepare one for then at all. The important point behind giving notice is that it allows someone to react. The relevant point about the Points Party was that I planned to change the contract; and the contract allows parties to respond to a planned change by leaving the contract. The method by which I change the contract is surely irrelevant in this. (Going back to your Buffalo band example, suppose you'd said you were taking your wife, but instead arrived without. As far as I can tell, that would have no effect whatsoever on the city's duty to provide you with a brass band, just as the mechanism of the change to the contract is completely irrelevant as far as a warning that it might change is involved, whereas, for instance, the text of the change /is/ relevant, and it would have failed had I tried to change the contract to an entirely different text.) -- ais523
