Murphy wrote:
> Point there. These could do with some alternative cleanup,
> though; revised proto coming up shortly.
The revised proto looks very nice, good choice of wording.
-G.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> An inquiry is a CFJ that is not a lawsuit.
Good terminology.
> A binding agreement is an agreement made by two or more players
> with the intention that it will be binding (i.e. that they
> become parties to it and agree to be bound by it).
Is it intentiona
Ed Murphy wrote:
>>You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
>
>Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
R1504's penalties are of a criminal flavour. R1742 (i) and (ii) are
equity-style civil remedies. Quite different.
>> If so, you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" termin
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
> You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
No, they aren't. Punitive damages are in R1504, but you've
deleted a cornerstone of justice, the ability of a judge to assess
compensatory (e.g. non- punit
Murphy wrote:
To clarify: Currently, rule violations are punished by Rule 1504
(and/or Rule 1742 since the Rules are treated as an agreement),
while agreement violations are punished by Rule 1742. Under this
proposal, rule violations would still be punished by Rule 1504,
while agreement vio
Murphy wrote:
> You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
No, they aren't. Punitive damages are in R1504, but you've
deleted a cornerstone of justice, the ability of a judge to assess
compensatory (e.g. non- punitive) damages:
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? If so,
you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" terminology.
To clarify: Currently, rule violations are punished by Rule 1504
(and/or Rule 1742 since the Rules are
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A subject SHOULD NOT be pursued through a new CFJ, but rather
through Appeal.
"An appealable subject".
Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
Ed Murphy wrote:
> A subject SHOULD NOT be pursued through a new CFJ, but rather
> through Appeal.
"An appealable subject".
>Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? If so,
you may as well drop the "Civil CFJ" terminology.
-zefr
9 matches
Mail list logo
