On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
>>> The special case of a simple 'X SHALL do Y by
>>> was established in CFJs 1765 and 1890 to imply the
>>> mechanism, but I'd argue that's just an archaic linguistic sho
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
>> The special case of a simple 'X SHALL do Y by
>> was established in CFJs 1765 and 1890 to imply the
>> mechanism, but I'd argue that's just an archaic linguistic shortcut,
>> not a necessary side-effect of
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> The special case of a simple 'X SHALL do Y by
> was established in CFJs 1765 and 1890 to imply the
> mechanism, but I'd argue that's just an archaic linguistic shortcut,
> not a necessary side-effect of the SHALL.
Sorry, you're right; but the CFJ statement is
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So how does that translate for SHALL->CAN?
Gratuitous: SHALL and CAN are supposed to be orthogonal, and it's
perfectly reasonable to require someone to perform an action by a
certain mechanism without actually allowing them to (e.g., you SHALL
On Friday 9 May 2008 5:10:29 Alexander Smith wrote:
> Is it even possible to agree to a private contract you don't know
> all the details of? More importantly, if it is, what happens?
Seems to me that it's possible, but basically ineffective due to
R101(v). You can decide at any time not to consi
5 matches
Mail list logo
