On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, comex wrote:
> Well, *most* definitions in contracts.
You're most likely right: I started to write mine as an act-on-behalf
and then wondered if it was necessary to do so and dropped it, having
that specific legal mechanism definitely makes it stronger.
-G.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Pavitra wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 2. If a legal construct (e.g. rule or contract) creates a platonically
>> infinite process that functions "instantaneously" without finite time
>> delay when is triggered by a single (finite) event, it can in fact lead
>> to an infinite
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 2. If a legal construct (e.g. rule or contract) creates a platonically
> infinite process that functions "instantaneously" without finite time
> delay when is triggered by a single (finite) event, it can in fact lead
> to an infinite result. This was never subject to CFJ that
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Zotting a CFJ" means "intending to appeal a CFJ, acting on behalf
> of every party to the Z house to support, and appealing it".
FWIW, I won't join because of this bit. Criminal cases may be
underused, but appeal cases ar
4 matches
Mail list logo
