2008/6/26 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hmmdidn't think of that. Perhaps the Protection Racket needs
> amended to allow such action?
>
> BobTHJ
>
That would be too specific. It's an odd clause.
ehird
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
>>> a contract so that
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
>> a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On the
>> other hand, "would cause" seems
2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
> a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On the
> other hand, "would cause" seems a bit weak; if it was worded "might
> cause" there might be a stronger argume
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If
> indirect preventions are counted, then almost any game action could be
> forbidden on the grounds that it led to breaching the contract.
Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
a contract
5 matches
Mail list logo
