ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2698: TRUE
>>
>> I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments;
>> in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based
>> methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to review
>> the notice-based change that e actually had in mind.
>
> These arguments contradict judge c.'s arguments in CFJ 2697, where e
> explicitly ruled that the amendment in question did give a reasonable
> opportunity to review the amendment:
>
> c. wrote:
>> Although there was a plethora of objections in this case, ais523 made
>> it clear that e intended at least some of eir (identical) amendment
>> attempts to go through despite them, and nobody could have reasonably
>> discounted this as at least a possibility. In this case, therefore,
>> every player who was a member of at least one public contract had the
>> reasonable opportunity to review the amendment.
I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In
particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments
in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review
the possibility of a loophole in the various without-objection methods,
but I don't think there was reasonable opportunity to review the
possibility of declaring with-notice after the fact.
Anyway, I think R1728(a) ("unambiguously and clearly specifying ...
the method(s)"), plus the interpretation that "with ... notice" in a
contract activates R1728(4), defeats the scam even without R101.
> Is there a defined process for appealing arguments but not judgements?
> To me, the combined judgements suggest that the mousetrap scam worked,
> but the contradictory arguments make me hesitate to resolve the issue by
> "using" the scam, in case one or other of the judgements is incorrect.
You can appeal and request AFFIRM with a concurring opinion.
