On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 10:22 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I submit the following Rule, "Generalize R101(iv)", AI-3:
>
> Should the PNP take this as an unambiguous attempt to submit a proposal?
I don't think so, it isn't
On 3 Nov 2008, at 15:22, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Should the PNP take this as an unambiguous attempt to submit a
proposal?
The Rulekeepor should take it as an unambiguous creation of a rule.
--
ehird
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following Rule, "Generalize R101(iv)", AI-3:
Should the PNP take this as an unambiguous attempt to submit a proposal?
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't you use the standard-English definition in place of the
> contract definition? Ooh, another bug: any term defined in a
> contract can't be actually used or assumed in the rules because
> it is not (R754) "explicitl
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Taral wrote:
> I don't think this is a fix. It doesn't stop the Rules from imposing
> an obligation on you derived from a definition or declaration in a
> contract by which you are not bound.
Wouldn't you use the standard-English definition in place of the
contract definition
Goethe wrote:
> iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound or
> otherwise be put under obligation by the text of an
> agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e either
> (a) is not a party of, or (b) has not had the reasonable
>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amend R101 by replacing:
>iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by
>an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has
>not had the reasonable opportunity to review.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I submit the following Rule, "Generalize R101(iv)", AI-3:
>> ---
>> [Bug or lack of clarity: The text of a contract should not be ab
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 15:33 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I submit the following Rule, "Generalize R101(iv)", AI-3:
> ---
> [Bug or lack of clarity: The text of a contract should not be able to
> generally impose any obligations, re
9 matches
Mail list logo
