DIS: Re: BUS: z->inf

2009-11-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: z->inf

2009-11-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

DIS: Re: BUS: z->inf

2009-11-17 Thread Pavitra
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