From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 18 05:45:58 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 18 May 2006 05:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FghsE-0002wh-Oz for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 05:45:03 -0700 Received: from silene.metacarta.com ([65.77.47.18]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fghs9-0002wR-7T for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 05:45:02 -0700 Received: from localhost (silene.metacarta.com [65.77.47.18]) by silene.metacarta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABE89F9BC for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 08:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from silene.metacarta.com ([65.77.47.18]) by localhost (silene.metacarta.com [65.77.47.18]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16192-07 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 08:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [65.77.47.138] (baxter.metacarta.com [65.77.47.138]) by silene.metacarta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369A69F943 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 08:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <446C6C45.8080006@ropine.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:44:53 -0400 From: Seth Gordon User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20060423) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} References: <20060518013947.35615.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at metacarta.com X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11608 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sethg@ropine.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Maxim Katcharov wrote: >> >> 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). IANAL, but I believe that one reason the law has standard rules of contractual interpretation is so that the parties to a contract *don't* have to write out every condition in such excruciating detail. > 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? The zoo is in a better position than the dairy to know the consequences of missing a milk delivery; they could have made sure to have enough milk on hand to feed the critters in spite of the missed delivery, or written a clause in the contract providing for penalties in the event of a missed delivery (giving the dairy an incentive to consider delivering in spite of the tiger), or insured the critters against such accidents. 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.