On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Arguments: > 1. Once the promise is in someone else's hands, G. generally can't > prevent the breach from occurring (see R1504(e)). > 2. This promise contained an illegal action when the promise was > created. The judge is asked to also opine on what would happen > if the promise weren't illegal when written, but became illegal > later (see R1504(d or e)).
Grat: In this case, I think we have a precedent that "could have reasonably avoided" is not blind to history-- as long as you could have reasonably avoided violating the rule by not creating the promise in the first place, you're still guilty. Whether you'd be guilty in the hypothetical case would probably depend on whether it was reasonable to expect you would not end up violating a rule by making that promise.
