[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

On 5/17/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/17/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> 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).