From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 18 00:14:29 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 18 May 2006 00:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgchA-0001jv-0c for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 00:13:24 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.205]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fgcgw-0001jE-7N for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 00:13:09 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so413313nzc for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 00:13:01 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MXWLXcb8z80GzWtLDDNb1YCt6sAndY05tHC6OWIxofMFqclrlDj5/vgFqsD81CRVlixRQ/g54lsyTbM7NBMXyf3mVVhpBx2Nb0sNvbwCOBX5ufgxsqGKsoxTUc+kMKhhzVCBkBVpUK4AjeCp97awr0nPE87TsX6Q4fh34H53aKE= Received: by 10.36.250.61 with SMTP id x61mr182205nzh; Thu, 18 May 2006 00:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 00:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:13:01 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060518013947.35615.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060518013947.35615.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11604 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/17/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > On 5/17/06, John E Clifford > > wrote: > > > > Despite the unrealistic use of "tiger days", > > This is from the official report of the case. Oh, this is a real case? I didn't realize this, as it seemed rather whimsical. I did google it, but got no results. > > I'll reply on your terms. > > The court is stating that the restriction > > given, "all tuesdays", was > > not the one intended. > > No it is not. That was the correct way to write > the contract. It would have been unreasonable > and misleading to have put in all the conditions > that might apply. I don't see how it would have been misleading. You probably wouldn't have to put in all the conditions - just one that says "except on days where it is unreasonable given the previously-described resources of the milk company" (or something). What if this was a zoo (er, not the one that allowed the tiger out) that was getting milk delivered to it, to be consumed by some rare specimens that would eat nothing else? Zoo gets no milk, rare baby critters died. Do you think that the court would have ruled differently? How would you write a contract for a situation like that, if a judge can simply say "you guys probably weren't talking about tiger days"? The zoo-client probably /was/ talking about tiger days. They probably looked at several milk companies until they found one where the contract stated that they would get the milk every Tuesday. So what's the difference here? I do think that it's the case that the court forgave the milk company for making an incomplete contract, by virtue of the client probably recognizing that it's ok not to get milk if the milkman is in danger. > > It's saying that both > > parties screwed up in > > writing the contract. This is a result of the > > ambiguity of "all". > > Clearly not, since "all" does not appear. Nor is Ah - yes, I take that back, it's not a result of that. > "every" at all vague or ambiguous (or it would > not have been in the contract -- you are right > that lawyers do there best to avoid these > problems, but they come up in unpredictable ways > anyhow). > > > If > > the word "ool" was defined as "every single > > one. Yes, those too. NO > > EXCEPTIONS", and it was used in a contract, how > > do you think that this > > hypothetical court would have ruled? > > The ruling given is from an actual court, an > actual case (well, HLA Hart said it was anyhow; I Are you sure that it wasn't just an example that he presented? > don't have a citation). How a court would decide > in a case involving the new "ool," I don't know. Sadly, probably similarly to how they'd interpret the word "each". > But were they consistent with this ruling they > would decide the same. Tiger days are NOT > exceptions; they just don't count. > > > Speakers > > of a language with a > > word like "ool" would be well versed in the > > dangers of using it, and > > would indeed be better contract writers - I'm > > sure that you've heard > > of clauses like > > > > "...on all tuesdays from [...] to [...]. The > > milk company reserves the > > right to not serve milk on days that are > > unreasonable in the sole > > judgement of the milk company." > > > > in real contracts, yes? > > That would have been a sensible thing to put in > except that it is a open invitation to litigation > of a messy sort (was the judgment that delivery > was unreasonable on this day made in good faith > and by rational and/or lawful standards, and so I'd much rather have that mess than sign up for a contract that said "ool Tuesdays", have some animals die, and then go to court only to have a judge tell me "tiger days don't count". Yes, dammit, tiger days do count for me! You should have hired an armed escort! Sue my rival zoo for damages caused by the negligently poor restraint of a tiger, to recover what you're about to lose to me! But yeah, I get what you're saying: what if the milkman was attacked by a tiger, and so I didn't get the milk? What if all the milk was stolen? Should the milk company have had backup plans? But this sort of thing is up to a court to decide. Looking at "bad faith", it seems that a court will say that it's ok to not honor a contract if the case is being made in bad faith. It seems that this is what occurred in the tiger example. I guess my overall point is that "each/ool/all Tuesday(s)" isn't considered vague by the court. The court simply feels that the plaintiff is abusing the system, and so doesn't care if the defendant really did violate the contract. > on). The point is that the actual contract was > perfectly fine as it stood (and so the court > ruled). It just is that tiger days are not among > the possible referents of "every Thursday" > (though possibly for some other wording, such as > you suggest). To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.