On 10/23/2011 10:27 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Pavitra wrote: > >> Is there any particular reason why you didn't assign 3114-5 linked? > > Because the statements appeared to be orthogonal: > "f(x,y) would cause x to break a rule" > "f(x,y) would cause y to break a rule" > where f() represents an asymmetric situation (in this case, publishing > and cashing a promise). > > Contrast the more common > "f(x,t1) caused x to do such-and-such at time t1" > "f(x,t2) caused x to do such-and-such at time t2" > or > "f(x,c1) would cause x to do such-and-such in circumstances c1" > "f(x,c2) would cause x to do such-and-such in circumstances c2"
I guess that makes sense from an outside perspective. As a judge, I think that they tend to be addressing essentially the same underlying question, which is about who's legally responsible for cashing a promise. This might not come out until one tries to actually *answer* the questions; I can't know because I wasn't in that situation.
