On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, woggle wrote: > R101(iv) protects against insufficient notice, quite likely including tricks > where an indirected-to thing is changed suddenly. But if you care about > indirection, referencing text from an unambigiously specified promise is > probably neither unclear nor unambigiuous. I'm pretty sure that there have > been proposals that have copied text from rules into other rules; it's hard to > see how copying text from promises is substantially different.
I'm almost positive that there's case law that says "text that may change later based on events" is too ambiguous for a Dependent Action intent - you really have to unambiguously and clearly state *exactly* what you're intending, based on currently-available, complete information. I'll have a look for the cases, though - you're right that if the precedent isn't there or says otherwise, more protection is needed. -G.
