> Despite the unrealistic use of "tiger days", I'll reply on your terms.
> The court is stating that the restriction given, "all tuesdays", was
> not the one intended. It's saying that both parties screwed up in
> writing the contract. This is a result of the ambiguity of "all". 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? 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?
>
This idea of 'absolutely all, with no exceptions whatsoever' as a
definition for 'all' seems to have been batted around a bit by this
point. I don't find that I use it in normal conversation -- does
anyone have a good example of actual usage in this way? (in context
would be better than more designed examples). I have a feeling that
it is really seldom, if ever, used. Even formal contracts have a
habit of tacking on restrictions during the negotiations.